“Does it please Thee, O God, to deliver into the hands of these beasts the defenseless children whom I have nourished with Thy Love?” - St. Clare of Assisi

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Voris & Shea: Can't We All Just Get Along?

I am a lunatic, quick to anger (and quick to forgive I might add) and always ready for a fight. Perhaps our readers may have picked up on these traits, I dunno.

But I have to laugh when I find myself to be the calmest guy in the metaphorical room, 'cause something must be screwy. Screwy indeed.

In this case, it seems that two fine Catholic gents have gone a little kooky. I can't figure out which of these things is more over the top, Michale Voris' commentary on Amazing Grace or Mark Shea's reaction to it?

First Voris.



I like Voris, you guys should know that by now. But I think that his criticisms unnecessarily forces the worst possible interpretation of the lyrics. For instance, one of my favorite lines of the song is "how precious did that grace appear the hour I first believed." I have always interpreted that to be an exclamation of gratitude for a precious gift. As how precious a glass of water would appear to a man in a desert. His interpretation of the word "appear" seems strange and unnatural to me. Anyway, we can agree to disagree.

But for reasons I cannot really fathom, Mark Shea went ballistic on this video in a piece humbly entitled "Michael Voris Offers Unintelligent and Destructive Cultural Commentary." Wrong maybe, but destructive? Mark drops a whole dumptruck of hyperbolic polemic on Voris. Some juicy excerpts.

Voris' sole message is "I am the measure of Real Catholicism and those who agree with me have the right to call themselves Catholic, while those who disagree are liars and lukewarm fake Catholics".
and
Dave Armstrong (who is, of course, not a real Catholic since he questions the infallible Voris) looks at Voris' tissue of prideful, biblically illiterate and theologically stupid assertions
and then Mark unloads on those who like Voris (like me, I suppose)
Why does this matter? Because I am constantly hearing from fans of Voris who think that his method of perpetually sneering at brother and sister Catholics, tearing down anything that he deems to be not "really" Catholic, and endlessly complaining about and sneering at others for their alleged "impurity" (such as singing "Amazing Grace") constitutes being a "bold voice of reform".
and
I don't understand what people see in this guy. You can get all the good things he has to say--without the sectarian self-righteousness and cloddish theological blunders and over-simplifications--from lots of other sources. So it would appear that precisely what people want is his distinctive contribution: sectarian self-righteousness and cloddish over-simplifications.
Here is the thing, I actually agree with Mark's defense of Amazing Grace. But for the life of me I cannot understand why it bothers him that people like Voris.

Did Voris miss the mark on this one? I think so. Guess what, I miss the mark on some of my commentary occasionally and I think that Mark would admit that he blows it sometimes too. It is the nature of the beast. And I will freely admit that when Mark writes something I disagree with I like to give him a hard time, but I still like the guy and I hope that Mark still likes me. But I don't get why Voris drives so many people crazy, I mean neck-vein-bulging crazy.

Even if we disagree and even if we completely blow it sometimes, can't we all just get along?

(Actually, I am kidding. I really like the fighting. I just want to seem like I am reasonable. But then again, I am really just a protestant ;-)

Your Ad Here

189 comments:

LarryD said...

I've got popcorn and a front row seat. ;-)

Baron Korf said...

"Why does this matter? Because I am constantly hearing from fans of _____ who think that his method of perpetually sneering at brother and sister Catholics, tearing down anything that he deems to be not "really" Catholic, and endlessly complaining about and sneering at others for their alleged "impurity""

You can fill in the blank with either Voris or Shea.

Dave said...

Baron nails it

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patrick Archbold said...

Remember.

Anonymous + Critic (Of Shea, Voris, or me) = Deleted

Vox Cantoris said...

I've been a choir director, cantor, schola master and blogger for many years.

Amazaing Grace is a "Protestant" hymn.

Hymns are foreign to the Catholic Mass and are an accomodation; catholic hymnody is intended for the Divine Office.

St. Pius X wrote, "Don't sing at Mass, sing the Mass!"

The writer of the hymn was a slave-trader. Good, he converted and declared that he was a "wretch."

The hymn is fundamentally "protestant" in theology. Mr. Voris is correct.

This is not about "ego."

Mr. Voris is correct.

However, to describe the resolution could not be put, I suppose, in a little video vignette.

What we should be singing are the Propers, the Entrance Antiphon and psalm, the Offertory and the Communion Antiphon and Psalm. Leave the hymn for the Recessional or Postcommunion meditation. And, I am talking about the Novus Ordo, as well as the Usus Antiquior!

Until such time as Catholics understand the liturgical mess they are in the pathetic liturgical experience that most endure will never change.

Go and get educated, you're a grown-up Catholic now.

Google "Simple English Propers."

Visit The Chant Cafe.

Read everything on the web page of the Church Music Association of America.

Amazing Grace, IS NOT A CATHOLIC HYMN.

David Anthony Domet
Toronto
Vox Cantoris

Anonymous said...

I think Mark made a mistake with this one. It wasn't even a current video - someone posted it to his FB wall and he took the bait.

(David Anthony Domet is right - incidentally. As is Voris.)

Catholic public life is full of different characters with varying angles and gifts. Different niches. I don't have time -and sometimes the patience - for cheerful mommybloggers and nit-picking apologists. But I don't take it upon myself to tell them they should shut up either. Shea needs to chill out and see that he and Voris are cut from the same cloth - not a bad thing. It's just the same cloth.

Therese

Anonymous said...

I think Michael Voris does a service to the Church and makes many, many good points. However, my father is a poorly trained, life-long Catholic (who was my first pro-life teacher) but listening to Michael Voris' Vortex is actually turning him against the Church. Sometimes I wish Michael could tone it down a bit, or a least tell us good news from time to time.

I am not Spartacus said...

Mr. Shea has a long history of unjust angry attacks made against Christians who were talking about issues and events he was largely ignorant about.

Long ago, I stopped reading his website due to his arrogance and ignorance. His "apologetics" has made many enemies.

Here are just a few links - I could post many such links


http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/09/mark_sheas_mind_reading.html

http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Answer%20to%20Shea%20on%20Jones%20book.pdf

http://www.culturewars.com/2011/Newton.htm

priest's wife said...

you're right- can't we all get along?

Anonymous at 10:41 has it right- Voris should do a good-news video at least 25% of the time- even if it is still just his opinion what that good news would be

In the Byzantine rite- we have hymns only during coming up for Eucharist and at the end (both of these not required, but it is small t tradition)- is this the way it was with the Roman-rite?

JC said...

Sadly, "I am not Spartacus" is right. Mark's blog has been increasingly consumed by his arrogant and unjust attacks over the last year. This is just the latest example: a hit and run -- attacking Voris, then posting that he is "out" for the weekend 15 minutes later.

Mark, I know you are a Catholic, but I wonder, are you really "Catholic and Enjoying It?"

It no longer sounds like it.

Dave said...

I think both Voris and Shea can be excessive in delivery style but both frequently make good points. Unfortunately separating the two takes some doing.
As for Amazing Grace, the hymn doesn't fit in the ideal of Gregorian chant mass but I for one love it anyway. Also I dispute the notion that it's strictly Protestant. I don't find anything offensive in it. Further this line from the 4th verse: "He will my shield and portion be", can be read as a Eucharistic reference.

Suzanne Temple said...

This has nothing to do with Amazing Grace. This is all about Mark Shea still being angry at Voris for criticizing his "tone" regarding the Fr Corapi scandal.

Dave said...

You may be right Suzanne

anonymous in Canada said...

Anonymous at 10:41 brings out a very important point. There are different needs in the Church today, and what might be useful for one group might not be useful for another. To take the point in case, Mr Voris is correct about Amazing Grace, but 75% of the parishes I have been in would find it a relief to sing something so 'meaningful'. They are nowhere near the stage of understanding his point, as they struggle to be faithful and to worship in a somewhat dignified way.

Bill Meyer said...

Shea's vitriol is stunning. His specialties seem to lie in ad hominem attacks, and sweeping condemnations. He may have (had) some good things to offer, but I am officially sworn off of those who--despite claims to being Catholic--have chosen to ignore the scriptural advice to judge not.

JoAnna said...

I am not spartacus - I notice you don't post any links to Mark Shea's actual blog. Might want to try looking at the source instead of relying on the judgment of others...

Mark Shea's blog was one of the first I started reading after becoming Catholic, and I still like it. Voris rubs me the wrong way for some reason. He gives good commentary mostly, but every so often he seems to go off the deep end about something (for example, when he was telling his followers to walk out of their churches if their priest so much as MENTIONED "Earth Day" in their Easter homily... making no exception if a priest were to have a homily about how sinful it is to attempt to supplant the Easter celebration with Earth Day).

But I largely agree that Mark's condemnation of this particular video was a little over-the-top. Yeah, Voris was wrong (in my opinion) but it's not worth the level of irritation that Mark apparently had.

Anonymous said...

I try to read and watch all different viewpoints in the Church, but I think RealCatholicTV is talking about the "hard issues" that most others are simply ignoring. I think Mark is thinking he is being label "professional Catholic" but sometimes Mr Voris does make mistakes in his info, but I also watch Catholic News Roundup with Matt McCallaugh and Today in History and other parts of that Website.

JoAnna said...

Bill Meyer - actually, you're mistaken. Catholics can and are actually CALLED to judge actions and behavior. What we are not to judge is the eternal destination of someone's soul, and I've never seen Mark Shea do that.

Anonymous said...

And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins. (Mark 11:25)

First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. (Matt 5:24b)

If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. (Rom 12:18)

Bill Meyer said...

JoAnna, we are called to discern right from wrong, and to take right action.

Bill said...

@ Baron Korf: Just so.

paladin said...

From what I can tell, Suzanne hit the nail on the head; Mr. Shea is still smarting about Mr. Voris' scolding about "tone" regarding the whole Fr. Corapi brouhaha (and, though this is my mere opinion, I think Michael's commentary struck a nerve in Mark), and the "Amazing Grace" thing was merely a sort of pretext for Mark "launching" at Michael again. In Mark's defenses of his comments about Fr. Corapi, it was rare that a paragraph went by without some mention of Michael Voris.

Blech.

Anonymous said...

Mark who?

Devin Rose said...

I'm gonna get Shea and Voris together and we'll all have a beer together. I bet they'd be friends.

paladin said...

:) Godspeed, Devin!

David said...

So call me a flake here, no one has to (or perhaps should) believe this but... I had a dream once wherein I heard angels singing. It was only a couple of seconds of singing, but it was unimaginably beautiful. (FAAAR most beautiful thing I have ever heard. Can't describe beyond that.) Point is: I did not get the impression that it was THE Mass that they were singing. It was, literally, songs of praise. This is not to say that I think the Mass is NOT sung in Heaven, but rather to say that I believe any and all songs of praise to God, or songs which recognize any of the goodness of God are GOOD!

So, if Amazing Grace is "protestant" so what? A lot of Protestantism is based on the Truth. If a Protestant says, "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior" do we say, "hogwash - Protestant"? I hope not.

I get the point that there are elements of the hymn that may not be -ahem - "in tune" with the fullness of the Truth that is in the Catholic church. But, anyway, the song is beautiful and to suggest that we should not sing IN Mass (or out) songs of praise is, I think, a misunderstanding about the will of God.

Voris, Shea and Patrick Archbold ARE all hotheads. Welcome to the club: Membership is free. (Charter member myself) Shea has a way of going on about Enhanced Interrogation as if he knows what it is. AND he has the nerve to get lathered about it. That pisses me off. But, in general, he is theologically sound so I like a lot of what he does. Particularly on the radio.

Voris is on-target most of the time as well, as is P.A, here.

The problem occurs when, any of them goes of half-cocked (not enough info) or just plain without regard for the feelings of others. For instance, I thought that one of Shea's Scud shots on Corapi was fired off too soon, before the facts were in, for instance. (He apologized like a man - even though he may have been right, he didn't know that yet.)

Then again sometimes Voris comes across to some as mean-spirited, that his messages could be delivered with a smidgen of kindness as well as simply correction.

I personally thought that the Archbold "Chihuahuas" video was in that same vein. It was unnecessary piling on. Sometimes I know someone is full of it, and I may even tell him he is full of it, but it is better for my soul to just walk in the other direction. Laughing, pointing and, sneering and such at other people's sins and failures may feel good and even be pretty funny, buy it also comes across as mean-spirited and certainly lacking in compassion, lacking in mercy. (Sorry to say.)

People want to hear what is correct, but that does not mean that it can not and should not be done with compassion.

After all, our brothers and sisters in Christ are real people with real feelings. Did Jesus say to the woman at the well, "That makes you a WHORE!" No. He told her her sins in a compassionate way.

That is what is too often missing from the Catholic Blogoshpere in my opinion. It's like a Dr. with a poor bedside manner. Makes him less of a physician.

I have a reputation for speaking very directly at times too, but I've learned that this is not always pleasing to God, who wants me to sacrifice my "way" sometimes, for the benefit of others. Occasionally a person needs to put force behind their voice in defense of themselves or another, or in order to get the attention of a non-listening person. I am okay with that to a point. I don't believe one needs to beat around the bushes, but that doesn't mean we need to beat each other over the head either.

Question: How is what you are saying helping that person? Are you converting them? Or are you just making them angry? Maybe some good questions to ask ourselves.

Fr. Erik Richtsteig said...

Welcome to Catholic Celebrity Deathmatch!

Seriously, neither of these guys bats 1.000. (Who does?) However, both are worth listening to.

Paul H said...

I very much enjoy and have benefited from some of Mark Shea's work, especially in venues other than his blog.

But having said that, I mostly stay away from commentary by both Voris and Shea, for reasons that this post makes pretty clear.

JPac said...

So I know curiosity killed the cat but does it also kill the Catholic? Because, Patrick, when comments are removed -- especially if someone else commented on the removed comment before it was removed -- I go nuts! Can't you also remove their name entirely so I don't even have to know I'm missing something?

Voris - Shea, both good men who only want to help the rest of us to Heaven, we're all mostly adults and neither are x-rated so we big kids can sift through the Catholic blogosphere and chose for ourselves who to side with as we see fit all we ask is that bloggers "first do no harm."

About Amazing Grace, a few years back an interesting little book was published about the man who wrote it and may help with appreciating it for what it's worth. Besides, Matt was looking for a good Christian fiction novel recently: The Infidel: A Novel Based on the Life of John Newton by
Joe Musser.

Sue said...

I don't know a lot about Mr. Shea, but as for Mr. Voris, I appreciate what he has to say. I sure wish ALL the Bishops would stand up and be clear like that instead of the gobbledygook double speak that sends an ambigious message. I don't really care what he says about Amazing Grace, but I like that he stands up against Abortion & Homosexuality and all sorts of other immoral things. (wish my priest would do the same). We live in a time of moral relativism and it is awful for us. Maybe we need somebody with a more John the Baptist style. Whenever I watch Voris I can't help but think of Luke 3:7 where he is calling the people a Brood of Vipers and telling them to repent. I bet the people loved that back then. Anyway, I am sure both men are good men, and I think we should all do well to remember not to hang our hats on Man, but on God.

Ben Anderson said...

Patrick,
I pretty much agree with everything you said. I don't agree with Voris on this, but I tend to agree with him most of the time and appreciate the fight he's waging. Shea's contempt of Voris is lamentable. I wrote a response to Voris' take on Amazing Grace when the video first came out:
http://www.fallaciesandfashions.com/2010/05/re-amazing-grace-heretical.html

Badger Catholic said...

Their feud kind of started with the Corapi thing I think.

Rudy said...

I used to like O'Shea, no longer. He has become smug, dismissive, sarcastic in a really annoying way. He is starting to look like a bully.

I am not Spartacus said...

"I am not spartacus - I notice you don't post any links to Mark Shea's actual blog. Might want to try looking at the source instead of relying on the judgment of others.."

Dear JoAnna. I do not know how you missed it, but, apparently you did. Those links included internal links to CAEI and Shea's rancid rants.

He is way out of his theological depth when he tries to take on the likes of E. Michael Jones and Robert Sungenis and so he is forced to rely on inventions, invective, and character assassination.

The WWWTW team he rashly attacked include a number of Catholics with Doctorates.

In his fetid response to Mr Voris, Shea cites a poor translation of the New Testament that uses, "wretched," although, for instance, Douai Rheims uses, "unhappy."

And so it goes for Shea.

He is a very out-of-control, angry, vindictive and vicious man.

And, in addition to being a bully, he is a coward. More than a few Catholics have called him out for a debate after he personally attacked them, but he won't debate.

http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2011/02/more-from-jerk-mark-shea.html

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=1179940.0

Teresa said...

Voris probably did get this wrong but I am not 100% sure that he's wrong. Need to do more research on Amazing Grace.

Mr. Shea reminds me of the cantankerous old uncle who went off the rails a long time and still thinks he knows it all about Catholicism. He is the most uncharitable writer, evangelist I have ever seen. He treats people, fellow Catholics, who disagree with him as if they were the enemy. I wouldn't go to him for any Catholic advice.

JoAnna said...

I am not Spartacus -- like I said, post the actual links so people don't have to sift through other opinions before forming their own.

I like Shea, always have. I'm honestly puzzled about the number of people who seem to think he's recently become more uncharitable, cantankerous, etc. I've read his blog for 8 years and I'm not noticing a huge shift in attitude. But maybe it's because he and I have similar senses of humor. :)

My husband and I met him once, at a Theology on Tap event in our hometown. He was lovely, gracious, and very funny. We liked him immensely.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear JoAnna. The links I posted were links to men who were responding to the rancid rants of Mr. Shea and they did so at their own sites because Mr. Shea either had unjustly mischaracterised their words and actions at his site or Mr Shea refused to let them post their reactions to his rancid rants on his site.

Mr. Shea has chased many good Christians away with his demented diatribes and poor scholarship.

He is an abusive bully who ought be reigned-in by his Bishop because if his not reigned-in he is likely to face a law suit.

Suzanne said...

Voris got it right on this one. I had a priest/theology professor at Steubenville take down this hymn in much the same way that Voris did. It was written intentionally as the Protestant rebuttal to Catholic theology on grace and salvation. Padre said the hymn has absolutely no place in a Catholic liturgy.

I suppose, if you want to put your own Catholic interpretation on it and sing it at home or with your friends apart from the Mass, I think that's probably fine. Protestantism is the prevailing religious understanding in our culture and we contribute to the confusion of the laity when accommodate that understanding in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. As Voris mentioned, the Catholic Church has 2000 years of history and the greatest liturgical music of all history. Why is it so hard for liturgical musicians to find something which is unquestionably appropriate?

Rob said...

Pat,
There may be a love spat going between Shea and Voris, but this thread needs to be closed. Why give a voice to fan boys of either side, basically trashing their little buddy's enemy? Is anything positive being served by this?

Suzanne said...

Oh, more to the point on Voris vs. Shea -- the increasing lack of charity among Catholic bloggers when talking about one another has reached the point of alarming. Shea and others are so utterly inappropriate in their tone. It becomes ego screaming. There's a difference between correcting what we see to be a damaging error and ripping someone to shreds. And, humility also demands that we recognize that there is room for legitimate disagreement on some issues. Some things really are grey. Okay, so they're not, but not every issue has been perfectly parsed out for us with definitive Church teaching.

David L Alexander said...

Rob:

Don't speak too soon, someone might say something original.

Two things:

1) We pray what we believe. A watered-down version of what we believe is NOT what we believe. Amazing Grace contains some truth, but lacks the theological clarity to make it a truly Catholic hymn. Others such as Karl Keating have addressed this issue (and the fact that someone "likes" it is really immaterial; this is about belief, not entertainment), so I won't do it here. But the FACT is, that such criteria matters in Catholic worship. Singing Carey Landry's "Hi God" may not be heretical, but it hardly leaves the venue better than it found it.

2) The problem with the whole Shea versus Voris thing, if there is such a thing, is not how they are different, but how they are alike. Both have addressed issues in the Church head on, and both have used rather pointed language from time to time. Both are occasionally rash; Voris in his critique of official liturgical reform, Shea in his critique of Voris. Of course, Voris did call a few people in the Catholic blogosphere out on how they handled the Corapi affair, and when he talks, it goes viral, just like the other stuff which is a rehash of things said twenty or thirty years ago. Voris appears as a relative newcomer, and he's taking the pundit circuit by storm. Now, that couldn't possibly make just a few of us a little jealous now ... would it?

joan said...

Please read:
http://www.chantcafe.com/2011/07/martin-mosebach-on-hymns-and-mass.html
http://arsorandi.blogspot.com/p/principles-of-anti-liturgical-heresy-by.html

kradcliffe said...

I admit to enjoying the spectacle, myself.

I've always enjoyed Mark Shea. I can tell that sometimes he takes things personally and holds grudges, but overall I really think I tend to agree with him on most things he writes about.

That includes Voris. I find that guy annoying on many levels, from his hair to that silly swirling motion he does with his hand to the way he just seems to bang on all the time about how everybody else is doing Catholicism wrong.

JoAnna said...

I am not Spartacus -

(1) Mark has no obligation to post anyone's responses to anything he writes on his personal blog. Voris either, if he has/had a blog. I can't really see how that is some great sin or offense.

(2) I read both the links you originally posted, then Mark's original post that inspired those posts. In my opinion, Mark isn't guilty of what he's being accused of by those bloggers (some of whom take exception to what is written in Mark's comboxes -- how is he supposed to control that??)

So, sorry, not convinced that Mark Shea is evilness personified.

Anonymous said...

Suzanne et al: Much obliged for the attempt at soul-reading by your mystic arts, but no, my concerns about Voris endless negativity, complaint, criticism and factionalism predate his foolish injection of himself into the Corapi matter: http://markshea.blogspot.com/2011/04/if-catholic-star-starts-entertaining.html

In this particular instance, what prompted my exasperation was somebody sending me Voris' needlessly factional and sectarian critique of Catholics who happen to like Amazing Grace and his stupid assertion that the hymn is "anti-Catholic". It's just not. It a perfect good affirmation of the Catholic doctrine of salvation by grace, written from the heart of somebody who had particularly profound reasons to be grateful for that grace. It is no more anti-Catholic than Paul's remark that "I am the foremost of sinners; 16 but I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience for an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life." (1 Tim 1:15-16).

What concerns me about Voris is summed up by a readers' remark above about his father: "listening to Michael Voris' Vortex is actually turning him against the Church." That is, I am afraid, the net result of Vori's approach. He *never*, so far as I can see, has anything to offer but complaint, accusation, sectarianism, party spirit, bitterness, and hostility to 99% of the Church, including the bishops. He "loves the Church" but gives no indication of being able to stand any actual members of the Church except for himself and a small nucleus of angry Reactionaries. Seriously, can you point me to a single Vortex where he offers something creative or constructive? It's entirely negative. And often (as with this video) it seeks to find something negative where it does not exist. His method is not only to see what is black and complain about it, but even to see what is grey and much of what is white as black too.

Are there huge problems in the Church? Of course there are! But they will not be helped by Voris relentless negativity and factionalism. Paul faced the same problems as we do. He began his letters with "grace, mercy and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" even to Churches as screwed up as Corinth. Voris unfailingly begins with declaring that he going to trap and expose all the liars out there. He posits that the vast majority of the body of Christ is the enemy and that any contact with those outside his small bubble of purity are enemies to be trapped and exposed. He *could* be a great gift to the Church. He has some real grasp of the Church's teaching. But his posture is one of complete hostility to most of the Church, including her shepherds. It is destructive and only feeds party spirit and the sin of anger.

Mark Shea

I am not Spartacus said...

1") Mark has no obligation to post anyone's responses to anything he writes on his personal blog. Voris either, if he has/had a blog. I can't really see how that is some great sin or offense. "

When he writes lies about others that is a grave offense, not to mention an illegality for which he could be, and should be in my opinion, sued.

(2)" I read both the links you originally posted..., then Mark's original post ...In my opinion, Mark isn't guilty of what he's being accused of by those bloggers"

If you think that Mr Shea was not guilty of writing lies about E. Michael Jones' presentation then you are as lacking in judgment as he is lacking common decency.

"So, sorry, not convinced that Mark Shea is evilness personified."

You have adopted one of his tactics. I never wrote he was evil personified.

I am not Spartacus said...

"Voris graduated from Notre Dame in 1983 with a degree in Communications and concentrated studies in history and politics. Equally impressive is his theological education. He not only trained as a young man in theology at the doctrinally-sound St. Joseph’s Seminary in New York, but in April of 2009, he received his Sacred Theology Baccalaureate (STB) from Sacred Heart Major Seminary/Angelicum in Rome – Magna Cum Laude."

Mr Shea avers; " He has some real grasp of the Church's teaching."

LOL

And Mr Shea, who believes in the Dual Covenant Theory, has degrees in what?

David said...

Boy, did you nail this one!

I have no particular fondness or dislike of Voris. He is orthodox but a bit smug. His commentary here is over the top on "wretch" and contrived on "grace appearing."

I am a fan of Mark, but he does tend to be thin skinned and, after an initial mild reaction, interpreted Voris's commentary on reactions to the disgraced Mr. Corapi as a swipe at him.

Winner: Patrick Archbold.

Stu said...

Mark,

I think much of your blogging of late "is destructive and only feeds party spirit and the sin of anger."

In my estimation, it is a waste of talent.

mrflibbleisvryx said...

I'm a very new Catholic here, so I don't know anything about Mr. Voris. I really like Mr. Shea's books. In fact, when I was converting, his book "By What Authority?" actually got me past quite a few issues and contributed heavily to my decision to convert. So, I'm not a Shea-hater.

However, I've been very disappointed in his blog. Even when I agree with him- which is most of the time- he really seems to take things to eleven very quickly. "Hyperbolic polemics" is a very accurate description. And he comes down hard on anyone who disagrees with him in the comments. It's his blog, so I guess that's his prerogative. But he comes across- to me at least- as if his opinion on an issue is the ONLY correct one, even on issues where we are free to form our own assessments. And like I said, it's his blog so he can do what he wants. I am just of the opinion that he takes things way too far and way too personally.

I will likely still buy his books. But as a big fan of them, I'm just disappointed in the blog.

I am not Spartacus said...

"He *never*, so far as I can see, has anything to offer but complaint, accusation, sectarianism, party spirit, bitterness, and hostility to 99% of the Church, including the bishops. He "loves the Church" but gives no indication of being able to stand any actual members of the Church except for himself and a small nucleus of angry Reactionaries. Seriously, can you point me to a single Vortex where he offers something creative or constructive? "



Me, me; pick me...I can.




http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhum#p/u/0/bmx-afpZ0uE

It took me all of three minutes to find that link and I think that Mr. Shea could have found it in about the same amount of time were he not so intent upon assigning malign motives to Mr. Voris.

Anonymous said...

IANS:

If by "Dual Covenant Theory" you mean I believe Jews are saved by Judaism and Christians by Christ, I believe no such thing. If you mean I think that Jews are bound by the first covenant and only freed from it by baptism, you will have to take it up with Paul, because he says exactly that in Romans 7.

And this has what to do with Voris tendency to create amateur inquisitors (besides demonstrating it)?

And, by the way, I don't claim to be an academic. However, your credulousness about the infallibility-creating abilities of academic credentials seems only to extend to your Fave Rave Celebrities. You (wisely) don't extend such credulity to Fr. Richard McBrien or John Dominic Crossan, according to the Ox Gore Principle, to which you appear to adhere with slavish fidelity.

Mark Shea

I am not Spartacus said...

THis is my last contribution to this post.

I think that Mr Voris might seem shocking to others because his presentation and his demeanor is undeniably masculine whereas in the Catholic Church in America for the past one-half century there has been a dearth of masculinity and a super-abundance of Clerical Casper Milquetoasts.

Feminism and Homosexualism are opportunitic social diseases that have nearly killed the Body of Christ in America and Mr. Voris is one on the welcome antidotes to those pernicious and deadly infections.

Woe betide the sob sisters when the SSPX is reconciled. They have 5000 – five thousand - Priests who are fully Catholic, Traditional, well-schooled, and ready to drive-out the evils weakening the Body of Christ.

How I'd love to be a fly on the wall in some Deanery when an SSPX Priest arises to speak the truth. It wil be a beautiful thing.

Stu said...

For those who are interested, here is an interview of Mr. Voris by Friar Roderic Mary of Air Maria where they discuss the entirety of his efforts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5K-KWwI9mQ

I am not Spartacus said...

Mr. Shea. You never change. Never.

You solicited a link to a Vortex Episode that was positive.

I provided it.

And instead of thanking me and apologising for your nasty and ignorant characterisation of Mr. Voris, you simply move on to another topic.

You are shameless and everybody can see you, right now, on this thread, in real time, acting in a way that who-on-earth would describe as an Catholic Apologist?

I am not Spartacus said...

Here is the link to where Mr. Sungenis unmasks Mr. Shea anbout the Dual Covenant Theory

http://bellarmineforum.xanga.com/713618569/question-184---mark-shea-and-the-old-covenant/

And now, I'm gonna go drink some cabernet and get the crummy taste out of my mouth

Stu said...

The link provided by IANS to a Vortex video is excellent. I would urge ALL to view it.

David L Alexander said...

My, my, it's always the Anonymous ones, isn't it? I suppose if I wrote something like this ...

"It a perfect good affirmation of the Catholic doctrine of salvation by grace, written from the heart of somebody who had particularly profound reasons to be grateful for that grace."

... in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, I wouldn't want anyone to know my name either. Hey, let's take a look at some of that evidence.

"'Amazing Grace' was written by the eighteenth-century Anglican sea captain John Newton (1725–1807) in response to his conversion by grace from his life as a slave trader. These lyrics express his moment of conversion: 'How precious did that grace appear / the hour I first believed.'

"While not directly contrary to Catholic teaching, this lyric stands in tension with it because it appears to envision entry into the state of grace following the advent of belief, with no mention of the sacraments (in other words, in a 'faith alone' fashion).

"This sentiment can be reconciled with Catholic teaching because the grace of conversion indeed can be given at certain hours, causing a person to repent of a previously sinful life and re-embrace faith in Jesus Christ."


So, how could it be "a perfect[ly] good affirmation of the Catholic doctrine of salvation by grace" if the sacraments are never mentioned? Hmmm ...

No, the hymn is not outright heretical, but (as I said earlier), it lacks the necessary theological precision to make it a truly Catholic hymn. Being non-offensive, being part of the truth, is not enough. It needs to reflect it in a truly Catholic way. We've gotten so used to a body of vernacular hymns written by non-Catholic authors, that we just assume they're all just hunky-dory.

No, not all of them.

Gotta admit, though, I do like that version when the bagpipes play it ...

David L Alexander said...

I am not Spartacus:

Dude, you are TOTALLY Spartacus!

Stu said...

Mr. Alexander,

For a true Scot, any sound on the bagpipe is great. I think it's in our DNA. :)

Anonymous said...

I'm anonymous cuz I can't get the stupid tech to work. Grrr.

IANS: Thanks for that one (1) link. I stand corrected. Clearly, the overwhelming pattern of endless negativity that concerns me is exposed as a total myth. But I am glad to see that he is capable of something positive. I hope he does that more.

Mark Shea

Anonymous said...

"So, how could it be "a perfect[ly] good affirmation of the Catholic doctrine of salvation by grace" if the sacraments are never mentioned? Hmmm ."

Come now. "And there was a man named Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector, and rich. 3 And he sought to see who Jesus was, but could not, on account of the crowd, because he was small of stature. 4 So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was to pass that way. 5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, make haste and come down; for I must stay at your house today." 6 So he made haste and came down, and received him joyfully. 7* And when they saw it they all murmured, "He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner." 8* And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold." 9* And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. "

What? No mention of baptism? Not even a mention of faith in Jesus? "Salvation has come to this house" because he *gave some money back*? Clearly Luke is not Catholic and means to deny both the sacraments *and* the doctrine of salvation by grace. It's not possible that Luke (like Newton) has one particular point he's trying to make and is not writing the Big Book of Everything on soteriology.

Seriously, Dave. It's a song about salvation by grace. It's true as far as it goes. We are not Pelagians. We can affirm what it affirms without complaining that it is "anti-Catholic" because it doesn't attempt to talk about a bunch of other things. Picking *this* hill to die on in defense of the faith is just silly. Affirming salvation by grace is not denying sacraments. Indeed, Calvinists generally believe in baptismal regeneration (though I don't know if Newton did). But the fact that he was silent does not mean he denied it.

Mark Shea

Teresa said...

Maybe we could say that Amazing Grace is not authentically Catholic or Doctrinally Catholic but maybe not anti-Catholic? Maybe he means anti-Catholic in the sense that the Reformation was Anti-Catholic and so therefore some of the words in Amazing Grace which promote Protestant views could be construed in some senses as being Anti-Catholic?

Suzanne Temple said...

Mr Shea,

No mystical arts here. I just know that Voris criticized you (in my opinion,unfairly) regarding the Corapi situation and his criticism went viral.I seem to remember reading on your blog that you received a great deal of nasty email on account of that criticism and that this was (understandably) very unpleasant for you. So,when I read this Amazing Grace thing at your blog and found your response excessive,I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that it would be very difficult for you to look at Voris with an objective eye, at least for some time. My apologies if I am mistaken.

Anonymous said...

No doubt something like that is what he means. And it is as ridiculous as saying that the Summa is "anti-Catholic" because Thomas cites and is influenced by a pagan and a Muslim philosopher. It is nonsense to call Amazing Grace "anti-Catholic". It's not. It's also nonsense to say that it is not "authentically Catholic". It teaches something perfectly compatible with Catholic teaching: we are saved by grace. Do it address the length and breadth of Catholic teaching? Of course not. Neither, for that matter, does the 2 John or the epistle to Philemon. Nor does the Summa, since Thomas died while writing it. But there is nothing *anti* Catholic about it, except for those who go looking for something to complain about. Again, why pick *this* hill to die on? "The Reformation" did not write the song any more than "Islam" wrote the works of Averroes upon which St. Thomas depended. The thing about the genetic fallacy is: it's a fallacy.

Mark Shea

Anonymous said...

Suzanne: No sweat. And sorry for my cranky rejoinder. I have indeed gotten a lot of hate mail and no small part of it consists of people informing me of my motivations. So I tend to overreact. My apologies as well.

Mark Shea

Fr Bill P said...

I shouldn't weigh in, but... Everyone needs to take a deep breath and realize the Church and The faith are much larger than either Shea or Voris can (or anyone else for that matter)can comprehend. What bothers me is that both, to some degree, engage in presented their opinions as church teachings at time. This is dangerous. There is a difference in saying that Amazing Grace has origins therefore I do not like it and saying that it is heretical. Because it does not suit one person's criteria for what is suitable does not make it heterodox. Heterdoxy (a concern of Big T Tradition) is a real problem and should be rooted out; opinion is just that, opinion. We spill way too much blood on small t traditions (disciplines, how we do things)and not nearly enough on the Big T Traditions. I would rather see either of them pound away at how sin is reigning in so many of our parishes; how we have co-opted envy, greed, sloth, wrath and malice, and the other deadly sins into how we approach each other. Some have tapped into the justifiable anger at lay and clerical teachers who have either deliberately mislead or ignorantly malinformed those placed under our care. They created followings, cults of personality, where they became the supreme authority of judgment and attack instead of instruct. They fancy themselves modern day St Bernards of Clairvaux and St Catherines of Siena. However, ego gets the best of them and pride becomes their downfall. The anger is understandable; but how we approach the anger is the difference between reaching out in wrath so as to level a sentence of judgment or whether we reach out to pull back that which is straying. Where we to spend more time on the latter and less time on the former, we would find that we do better to inspire conversion. Members of the Body of Christ leveling attacks against other members of the Body of Christ is unbecoming of our Baptismal call. I suggest we take St Paul's Letter to the Corinthians and St. Clement's letters to the Corinthians as we ready ourselves to attack, point out each others faults, and sit as judge, jury and executioner on things we have a scant amount of information about.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Bill:

Thank you. I couldn't agree more.

Mark Shea

David L Alexander said...

Mark, my comments on this matter were fairly balanced, and I stand behind them, as do the many others who get around just as much as you do (including those whom I quoted) who have stated the same position as I. I also think I've been pretty easy on you. I haven't sent you any nasty e-mails, and I haven't joined the other uber-trads who unjustly trash you on a routine basis. Never have, never will. So please reserve the sarcasm for someone who isn't nearly as reasonable.

David L Alexander said...

Besides, I thought you were on vacation.

Anonymous said...

Mr.Shea and other professional catholic bloggers and global catholic news media have been engaging in a fierce campaign against Fr. Corapi by spreading heresay. This is ruining and defaming this priest name. It goes viral! They mention not the advise of Bishop Gracida and the founder Fr. Flanagan founder of SOLT gave to Fr. Corapi to clear his name through the civil courts, because he can't get a fair trial in the canonical court.
A person is innocent until proven guilty. I believe their attack on Fr. Corapi is because Fr. Corapi speaks out against socialism in this country and he calls out the bishops who have directly and indirectly been supporting this socialism. Mark Shea makes comments in Fr.Corapi's Black Sheep dog blog by lashing out out at Patriotic Tea Party Americans and he called Glenn Beck an "apostate Catholic". Mark Shea further calls people who are giving Fr.Corapi the benefit of the doubt, conspiracy nuts and they would make tasty little lambs for Fr. Corapi to eat.
Oh Yes it does have to do with the Fr. Corapi saga and Michael Voris's calling out the professional Catholics.

Athelstane said...

Perhaps it's my heavy exposure to "Amazing Grace" through my Baptist in-laws' services, but really, I could very happily go the rest of my life without hearing the hymn in a mass. Ever.

As an evangelical Protestant hymn, it *does* have a certain beauty and power of its own. Its fame and following are well deserved, understood within its own sectarian tradition. But to call it, as Mark Shea does, "a beautiful and deeply Catholic hymn" is simply unfounded. Sorry, Mark. It is not Catholic. It was not written by a Catholic, and it is not informed by a Catholic theology.

Yes, Voris does overstate the objections to Amazing Grace, but I really do think there are formulations within the lyrics that are...let us say, ambiguous. And yes, Voris does have a point: *Why* are we singing Amazing Grace when we have such a vast history of (pre-OCP) outstanding Catholic hymnody to choose from (if indeed we must use hymns, as opposed to chanting the mass)? Sure: we could do much worse than Amazing Grace - and too many parishes do - but there's no lack of hymns which do very clearly and unambiguously present Catholic doctrine in our vast musical store chest. Given the abysmal level of catechesis and, let us be candid, religious indifferentism in the pews, this seems an especially poor time to risk the ambiguities and potential pitfalls entailed with peppering our masses with popular evangelical hymns.

Yes, Mark is right that we ought to avoid "sectarian self-righteousness," and Voris finds this too hard to resist here, I think, but simply declining to sing Amazing Grace at mass hardly constitutes such. We can respect the song for its own integrity in its tradition of Protestant hymnody, and let it remain there. Indeed, doing so constitutes a respect for that tradition, a tradition quite distinct from our own (even if it shares some common ground with us).

In all this, I prescind from any larger discussion of Voris's general presentation, which I grant is sometimes hyperbolic. But I think Mark has identified far better "Vortex" episodes on which to criticize him. You do great work, Mark, and I follow your writing with steady admiration. But here, I think, you've...well, missed the mark.

David L Alexander said...

Stu:

My ancestry is for the most part Franco-German. About ten or twelve years ago, we learned from a cousin to went to the ancestral region, that the Alexandre line immigrated there in the 17th century from Scotland, and that we were, in fact, of Clan Donald of the Isles.

That might explain it.

David L Alexander said...

Athelstane:

You said everything the way I should have. Good job.

Athelstane said...

One more follow up to the posts here, now that I've skimmed them. I always like to make at least *some* effort to respond to the original post first.

1. More on point: Mark, your point *is* well taken that to call "Amazing Grace" "anti-Catholic" is not sustainable. I don't think the lyrics can carry such freight. But to suggest that Dave Armstrong is arguing that seems unfounded. All he said was: "No, the hymn is not outright heretical, but (as I said earlier), it lacks the necessary theological precision to make it a truly Catholic hymn." I think you're hunting field mice with bazookas here (and so, alas, is Mr. Voris. An entire episode dedicated to a full scale attack on "Amazing Grace?). There's a middle ground between Voris's thermonuclear condemnation and your affirmation of the hymn...and Dave, like myself, I believe, fits in that terrain. "Amazing Grace" does not merit Voris's sturm und drang. But we're not sure it really merits inclusion in the mass, either, even if we might admire on some level its nobility of spirit and melodic construction.

2. And then to deal with a rabbit hole, which IANS's posts seem unable to avoid: The SSPX only has 550 priests at present, not 5,000. And 550 is still an impressive number, and I pray for their return to full participation in the life of the Church, as should we all. But there is no need to exaggerate.

Athelstane said...

Hi David,

Thanks for your kind words. But I think your post said it better than mine did.

David L Alexander said...

Athelstane:

Half of mine was a quote from someone else. You were right on the money, except my last name is Alexander, not Anderson. But if it's any consolation, that mistake happens a lot in real life too. I see you're from the DC area. Come to the Latin Mass at St John the Beloved in McLean some Sunday. I'm usually not hard to spot.

Anonymous said...

Athelstane:

Thanks for your intelligent reply. I'm not going to the mat to insist that AG *must* be sung. I am, as you correctly perceive, simply saying that it is not "anti-Catholic" and that Catholics who sing it are not Protestantized semi-Catholic unworthy to worship in the company of "Real Catholics" like Mr. Voris.

As to the fact that it was written by a Protestant somehow making it theologically problematic, I remain unpersuaded. Dave Alexander thought I was being sarcastic, but I was trying to get across a real point: a song that remains silent on, say, the matter of sacraments is not thereby proven to be anti-sacramental. This is a song about grace. Period. That it does not discuss sacraments, works of mercy, or merit just means its not a song about those things. If we start ditching songs merely because of their Protestant authors then, as a reader points out, we are going to have to slaughter an awful lot of music:

"Joy to the World - written by (Protestant) Isaac Watts

Hark, the Herald Angels Sing - by Charles Wesley, brother of John Wesley who founded the Methodists.

What Child Is This? - written by (Protestant) William Chatterton Dix

We Three Kings - written by John Henry Hopkins, Jr., an Episcopal clergyman.

Away in a Manger - wrongly attributed to Martin Luther, it's still Protestant in origin. It even says that the Christ Child didn't cry, which might possibly be considered by some a denial the Incarnation. Heresy!

O Holy Night - The lyrics we sing were translated by John Sullivan Dwight, a Unitarian minister. While the original French poem called Jesus "the Man God," Dwight conveniently left that part out of his very loose translation, most likely because Unitarians deny that Jesus is God. Heresy!

It Came Upon the Midnight Clear - written by Edmund Sears, another Unitarian minister! Heresy!

O Little Town of Bethlehem - written by Phillips Brooks, and Episcopal clergyman. Besides, who ever heard of singing a hymn to a town? Heresy!

The First Noel - The author is unknown, but it first appeared in a Protestant hymnal in 1833 so it's most likely Protestant. Can't take any chances so out it goes! Moreover, it says that the shepherds were guided to the manger by a star. Heresy! Scripture says that the star guided to Magi, not the shepherds; the angel told them what to look for to find the Christ Child.

Go Tell It on the Mountain - an African-American spiritual, thus also composed by Protestants.

O Come, O Come, Emmanuel- sure, it's based on the O Antiphons, which are Catholic in origin, but this translation was done by John Mason Neale, an Anglican clergyman, and Henry Sloane Coffin, a Presbyterian. It was first published by Protestants in Protestant hymnals; we can't have any Cath-o-tant hymns infiltrating the Mass, so bye-bye.

Good King Wenceslas - Also written by John Mason Neale. Not sung to often but still Protestant in origin and so off-limits to Catholics.

Silent Night - Though the German original was composed by a Catholic priest, the English translation we use today was done by John Freeman Young, an Episcopalian clergyman. Tainted by Protestantism, therefore it's Cath-o-tant - out it goes.

And that's just the Christmas carols...

Also, no Catholic should ever under any circumstances listen to Handel's Messiah, for Handel was a Protestant and the song uses verses from the KJV! The works of Bach as well."

There are, to be sure, a teensy weensy, itsy bitsy minority of Catholics who think this is a good idea. I am not among them. I repeat: of all the troubles in the worlds, I can't for the life of me see why a Catholic needs to die on this hill, fighting off a hymn that is a perfect vehicle for stating the Church's belief in salvation by grace contra Pelagianism.

Thanks again, for your reasonable and charitable reply, Athelstane. It was very refreshing.

Dave: Not on vacation. Just busy.

Mark Shea

Athelstane said...

Hello Dave,

I am...mortified to have misnamed you. I plead lack of sleep - or caffeine, at any rate. I did know better - honest.

I do occasionally make it over to St. John's, where you are so fortunate as to enjoy Revs. McAfee and Scalia - and thank you for the very kind invite.

Hello Mark,

Fair point, and fair examples. Thank you for the kind reply.

I would just say that...I am not in the minority that breaks out in hives at the prospect of a Protestant work finding its way into a mass or other Catholic celebration. All I mean to say - what I think David is trying to say - is that I think (prudentially) it is best to keep such usages to a minimum. And that the argument applies with *more* force to "Amazing Grace," than to the Christmas songs you cite, because it is so strongly identified with a Protestant sectarian tradition in a way that these Christmas songs (which have been fairly absorbed by the popular culture to significant degrees) do not. The hymn enunciates no distinct heresy; but it so often accompanies evangelical worship folderol that *does* have quite Protestant conceptions of grace that the Catholic parish music director is best advised to think long and hard before including it in the repertoire. I do agree that not every mass hymn *must needs* include clear sacramental theology, but the lack of it here in the face of this baggage may make the lack of it here more of a concern.

And like I said, we do have a tremendous body of outstanding (and clearly) Catholic hymnody to draw from. Every employment of Amazing Grace means an opportunity missed to draw on that heritage. The same goes for Haugen/Haas/Jnocas, to be sure, but that's a separate argument for another day.

There is a long, long list of things currently wrecking Catholic worship and catechesis I would go to war over before I would get to Amazing Grace, and I imagine that probably goes for David as well, not least because "wrecking" is an unfair inflation. But in the current environment, where we are having to fight an indifferentist flood in the pews, I just don't think it's wise to use. And I hope that we can reach that conclusion without unnecessarily offending or degrading our separated brethren. Mr. Vors is right to remind us that they are still separated but sometimes, like here, he seems to lose sight of the fact that they are still brethren. And sistren.

To sum up: I think it's fair to nick Voris for this episode. I just think you overcooked the meal.

David L Alexander said...

Father Robert Skeris, long associated with the "Church Music Association of America," from a 1991 lecture at Christendom College:

A practicing Catholic church musician and published composer has recently asked whether hymns with strong non-Catholic associations do not confuse or even antagonize the Catholic faithful by furthering "a misunderstanding of the basic premise of Catholic evangelization." The matter is surely worth a moment's reflection. And since the topical is the key to reality, let us consider some examples.

Many Roman Catholic hymnals published in this country during the past fifteen years include the Protestant "gospel" hymn, "Amazing Grace," presumably because the source of the "American traditional" tune ("New Britain" or "McIntosh") is the "Virginia Harmony" published in 1831 by James P. Carrell and David S. Clayton, and most often sung today in the harmonization of Edwin O. Excell. The tune may be "American traditional," but which tradition does the text reflect? A Catholic tradition? A current non-Catholic hymnal prints "Amazing Grace" under the sectional heading "The Gospel--Repentance and Forgiveness," and one can find the hymn in the topical index under "Grace," "Salvation," and "Testimony." The author of the text, John Newton (1725/1807) was an evangelical divine in Great Britain who "in theology was a pronounced Calvinist," as the standard theological reference works inform us. "Pronounced Calvinism" implies adherence to Calvin's doctrine of the inamissibility of divine grace and the certitude of salvation, as well as those basic doctrines characteristic of Lutheranism. One is therefore not surprised to find the personal pronouns, "I, me and my," more than ten times in the text, which leads one to suspect that the author held a typically Lutheran "reflexive" faith. Here, the legitimate liturgist cannot forbear to ask whether the archetypical attitudes "sola gratia" or "sola scriptura" are in fact specifically Catholic themes--those central to our Catholic identity" (Hubley)? If not, then could it be that the presence of such themes in a hymn text might eventually produce a "lulling effect upon our Catholic consciousness" (Hubley)?


Reproduced at the EWTN Online Library.

Fr. Frank B. said...

Not a big hymn fan, myself. As C.S. Lewis said, hymns are mostly second class tunes set to third class poems. Having said that, "Amazing Grace" is at least as Catholic as "Gather Us In," "Sing a New Church Into Being," and most of our popular Eucharistic ditties, which are largely receptionist in theology, although written by Catholics. And don't even get me started on the whole Praise and Worship/Jesus-Is-My-Boyfriend genre -- "Here I Am to Worship" -- Meh!

Besides, when I'm feeling blue I can sing Amazing Grace to "House of the Rising Sun (or should that be 'SON'? Hmmm)"; and when I'm all chipper-skipper I can sing it to "Gilligan's Island"! Just try doing THAT with O Sacrum Convivium!!

Micah said...

In all things certain, unity; in all things uncertain, liberty; in all things, charity.

That has been my guiding principle on all these sorts of issues. When I feel something needs to be done or someone needs to be corrected, I stop and consider if the Church teaches as certain on the topic. I probably fail at this more than I think, but it's the way to go.

So the exact meaning of Amazing Grace is ambiguous. I don't see anything certain about one interpretation over another. Therefore, it seems fine, but not pastorally appropriate because its ambiguity may mislead and not liturgically appropriate for other reasons. So I agree with Mark Shea on that much.

However, Voris is equally entitled to his interpretation of the lyrics. They are not certain.

So the question that needs to be asked is: where is the charity?

God help us all with that!

Anonymous said...

It appears to me that Shea and Voris are nothing more that different sides of the same coin.

But, I do have to wonder, has Mr. Voris ever mentioned or criticized Mr. Shea by name in one of his videos? Or, has he just used the term "Professional Catholic?"

Also, did Mr. Shea react to being called "professional" or "Catholic?"

Like I said, just wondering.

David L Alexander said...

"Besides, when I'm feeling blue I can sing Amazing Grace to 'House of the Rising Sun (or should that be "SON"? Hmmm)'; and when I'm all chipper-skipper I can sing it to 'Gilligan's Island'!"

Great. Now I'm gonna be thinking about that all day. Thanks a lot.

Athelstane said...

Hello David,

The Fr. Skeris observation is striking - thank you for posting it.

danightman said...

Re: Mark Shea,

Granted your remarks about John Mason Neale, who was one of the drivers of the Anglo-Catholic movement in Anglicanism, founding the Society of St. Margaret, among other things. His biography is in Wikipedia.

That said, Michael Voris is right in that "Amazing Grace" flows right out of Protestant theology such as sola fide and even a hint of the "once saved always saved" line of thought you yourself deride.

It is accommodation and there are plenty of good Catholic hymns, even in English (thanks to Neale, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Gustav Holst and lots of Catholics as well), ready to sing well.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Athelstane . Yes. The number of SSPX Priests is about 550, not 5000 as I wrote.

However, to be fair to me, that is a smaller error than I normally make,.

ThereseRita said...

Fr Bill P has the most relevant comment on this thread. Pat, you should ask him to expand it into a blog post.

Bottom line: Catholic bloggers/bloviators are subject to the same temptations as the rest of our overblown culture is...i.e., Me First + Me Loudest = Most Readers (AKA: Most Recognition/More $ for advertising etc)

If we're going to live our Faith, we need to err on the side of Charity & be very careful about identifying our own agendas with God's agenda. Not just because we know we have to answer to God for every word, like scripture tells us, but because of the danger of leading other 'followers' off the path of the Church.

ThereseRita

Stu said...

As a convert myself, this discussion has been good. While I don't feel as strongly about the song Amazing Grace as Mr. Voris, whenever I have been in a Catholic church where it is being sung, I have always had a strange feeling about it. It's like we were singing the song of the "other team," the one I left for the fullness of the Truth.

It's a nice song, but I too would rather here very strong Catholic songs during Mass.

Anonymous said...

Therese:

A word about the common delusion that I am raking in money from my blog adverts.

I'm not. I get a couple hundred bucks (total, not "per advertiser") every few months or so from the ads. Basically it comes to "dinner and movie" spread out over the year. Traffic going up and down makes no difference. The ads are there for a flat fee and clicking on them does not put any money in my pocket. Indeed, when I write something like my critique of Voris or Corapi, the net result is that the hate mail *takes away* from the time I have to do the writing whereby I make a living. It's a major time suck. So please: if you are going to (what's that word you use? "bloviate") about charity, then consider it possible (before uncharitably assuming that I only say what I say in the pursuit of filthy lucre) that you, like so many of my soul readers, don't know what you are talking about.

Mark Shea

MacBeth Derham said...

Mr. Shea has made a career of complaining about people. Yawn.

The Jerk said...

All the knocks against Shea, and his responses here, make me love him even more. Plus, why has no one mentioned Voris has a Flowbie haircut?

Stu said...

Mark Shea said...Indeed, when I write something like my critique of Voris or Corapi, the net result is that the hate mail *takes away* from the time I have to do the writing whereby I make a living. It's a major time suck.
--------------
Sounds like that hate mail provides a lot of reading...if you do it. Mark, no one forces you to read hate mail. Further, you operate a blog that is about you. The URL is "you' and the byline is about "you." So you should expect to get mail from people who don't like "you." Now if the hate mail takes away from you being able to make a living, I would recommend that you either stop blogging, especially since it is apparently not very profitable, or ignore the hate mail.

Jam said...

Yes indeed, the least of the errors of "I am Spartacus" is the number of SSPX priests.

I've been reading the Shea blog for eight years and I don't know where all this hatred is coming from. I've always found him lots of fun, charitable to his enemies, humble in his opinions, etc. Maybe I just don't know The Real Him (dum dum dum). Maybe my PhD has not equipped me to read good, or my attendance of ICRSS masses has watered down my understanding of the faith. Who knows!

I hate this "hard talk" fetish that seems to exist among so many Catholics. If you're enjoying it, it can't be because it applies to you... unless you're into S&M, which, ok, I suppose... (***joke! joke! look out!***)

As for "can't we all just get along" - I tend to think part of the problem is that people press and press Joe Blogger to say what he thinks about Notable Person. So he does and then everyone gets fluffed up about it. Chill out everyone. Make your own decisions. You don't have to shun people because you don't agree with them, or because they don't like the same people/things you like.

The Jerk said...

Or maybe the people who hate Shea can, I dunno, avoid his blog. You know, Stu, the one with his name in the url, and the one with his byline and photo. Or maybe they enjoy cultivating anger?

The Jerk said...

http://www.flowbee.com/

Frank said...

I reckon this Voris video is defendable (by whom I'm not sure) too.

Beers in a rose garden anyone? :)

Stu said...

Well, Jerk, I don't avoid Mark's blog, because I think overall he has much to offer. And because I like him, I give him honest feedback instead of simply telling him what a great guy he is, over and over and/or simply riding his jock like some fanboy.

If I didn't care about him, I would simply avoid his blog.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Jerk. I do not read Mr. Shea's Blog. But, Mr. Shea's actions and reputation are well-known, if not well-loved, throughout the Catholic presence on the internet.

He has made a lot of enemies who are tired of his act and as more and more information is generated about him the fewer will be his readers; but those few will grow ever more fervent in defense of his indefensible actions.

That is the way these things work.

There has been a pattern of abuse that is not easily dismissed as Shea hates this guy or Shea had a bad beard day or Shea was ill-informed about thus and such.

All of that aside, this is not Mr. Shea's Blog and I do not hate Mr. Shea but your keen insights are, nevertheless, appreciated.

Anonymous said...

Oh Dear Lord, please forgive me for having spent all this time reading through all of this...stuff.

The Jerk said...

http://www.flowbee.com/

Anonymous said...

After Sunday Mass I have to come home to a dose of Michael Voris to feel like I've been catechized on something Catholic . . . on a Sunday no less. If I wanted to hear something Protestant I would attend a Protestant church. Something Jewish . . . you get the point.

I'd say most of the problem with the CC is the political correctness to the point the church has toned down its homilies. TODAY I'd say the homilies need to be ramped up a few notches.

You see what's going on in our society:
- Abortion
- Living together having children outside of marriage (Catholics !!!)
- Gay marriage. What's next - if a threesome decides they want to marry that should be accepted too?

Ridiculous one says? Tell that to someone who lived in the 20, 30's, heck 60's when all this cultural shifts was in its infancy. Wasn't a thought.

I just can't wait for what's next (if the leadership of the church doesn't step up).

I don't know. What did I miss? I like what Voris says and the way he says it. We have been so toned down that when Voris speaks it's hate speech In Mark Shea's article - our real Catholic elect tells us that most of his readers are being duped (notice I took what Shea said about Voris and spun it around).

Richard W Comerford said...

Re:Lest we forget

For almost a decade Mr. Shea has been absolutely heroic; and brilliant, in both defending and explaining the Church's teachings regarding torture and just war. And this is at a time when other Catholic voices have been largely silent on these matters; with even a few actually advocating evil. Courage should be applauded.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

David L Alexander said...

"After Sunday Mass I have to come home to a dose of Michael Voris to feel like I've been catechized on something Catholic ..."

I'm grateful not to have that problem. If you come to St John the Beloved in McLean, Virginia, for the Traditional Latin Mass, you will never hear a bad homily. But don't take my word for it: http://tallguyav.com/stjhomilies.html

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Mr Comerford. Mr. Shea attacked, with vituperative viciousness, anyone who dared to have a personal opinion different than his.

He personally attacked Fr Brian Harrison and Christopher Blosser in an ugly and vile manner. Both of those orthodox Catholics were far better informed about those matters than he was, or ever could hope to be, but such realities are not even speed bumps when Shea decides to run over anyone who disagrees with him on a particular issue.

Bulls in China Shops do less destruction than Mr. Shea.

However, he does have faithful followers who see no evil when he does evil.

C'est la vie.

http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2010/03/mark-shea-attacks-fr-brian-harrisons.html

http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/labels/mark%20shea.html

Richard W Comerford said...

Re: Attack vs disagreement

"He personally attacked Fr Brian Harrison and Christopher Blosser in an ugly and vile manner."

Mr. Shea disagreed with the torture advocates. If you wish to see examples of real attacks on folks who advocate an evil read the Gospels.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Stacy Trasancos said...

I love being Catholic!

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Mr Comerford. Fr Brian Harrison was not advocating evil.

In your haste to defend Mr Shea's indefensible vile and personal attacks against orthodox Catholics, including a well-known Catholic Priest Scholar, Fr Harrison, you are not only heaping coals of scorn upon an innocent Priest by describing his investigative scholarship advocacy of evil, you are, unknowingly, illustrating how faithful readers of Mr Shea's Blog, over time, become infected with the same irrational blind hatred that far too often drives his mephitic prose.

That such prose reminds you of how Jesus Christ spoke says much about your understanding of The Gospels.

Mr. Shea is welcome to all of the praise he gets from men like you.

ThereseRita said...

"So please: if you are going to (what's that word you use? "bloviate") about charity, then consider it possible (before uncharitably assuming that I only say what I say in the pursuit of filthy lucre) that you, like so many of my soul readers, don't know what you are talking about."

Dear Mark Shea,
Wow. I guess that sentence is about as good an example of the hyperbole that Pat was refering to in this post as any. The odd part is that I'm really in awe of you as one of the grandfathers of Catholic blogging and, like another commentor said,, your books are very charitable & solid. So I dislike being put in a position of being against you...that's just not true...but I can see how you might take it that way. And I didn't know how the ads on your site paid you, so that info was helpful. And, I bet if I met Voris, I'd probably like him too...
My only point really was to reiterate what Fr Bill said..Geez.
ThereseRita

Bridget said...

I think the main problem is that most people's experience of Michael Voris is limited to the Vortex, which is a free show dedicated solely to Complaining about What is Wrong. Of course it's going to be negative. Don't watch the Vortex expecting warm fuzzies. RCTV's premium content tends to be much more positive than their free stuff.

Richard W Comerford said...

Re: by describing his investigative scholarship advocacy of evil,

The scholarship in question was terribly shoddy. The scholar apparently did not have access to Mr. Google.

Three years AFTER B XVI authoritatively taught (yet again) that torture is an intrinsic evil the scholar in question announced that he had just become aware of that particular Papal teaching. He withdrew his advocacy for torture as morally permissible.

Mr. Shea launched no personal attacks on the priest - scholar. Mr. Shea's condemnation of torture was perfectly in accord with the clear and constant Church teaching on this matter.

The real problem seems to be that Mr. Shea was not perfectly in accord with the teachings of a certain political party on the subject of torture.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous said...

Amazing Grace should not be sung in Catholic churches. I definitely support Voris' views. It is more inline with what Pope Pius XII said about music in Catholic liturgy.

Mr. Shea has the propensity to sound prideful and improper. I have been turned off numerous times by his crass language and analogies. I am shocked he still is not learned to be tempered in his blogging.

Philip James

Fr Bill P said...

I'll just repeat what I said earlier: Members of the Body of Christ attacking other members of the Body of Christ is unbecoming of our baptismal call. This is turning into a circular firing squad! How Satan must laugh as we beat each other up, sit on our moral high horses, and complain how something or another isn't meeting to my standards. There is already a highly filled quota of outside entities beating the tar out of us; perhaps we would do better to use our energies to combat their malicious lies with the truth instead of using our time to give credence to their lies. Tonight, in my homily, I preached about how the pearl of great price/treasure is the new life that Christ offers us through his self-giving love. I said that this life has certain markings: a life of the exercise of the virtues, a life informed by and styled after the Beatitudes, a life that uses the gifts of the Holy Spirit to bear the fruits of the Holy Spirit; how this life is defined by our participation in the sacramental life of the church and in living the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. Concisely (and it may be a little late for that) a life that is an imitation of Christ. We must quit cannibalizing each other; it is a sorry spectacle.

LarryD said...

Man, I gotta make more popcorn...

Anonymous said...

I sent Simon Rafe, MV's associate, an e-mail asaking if they were going to respond to Shea's ridiculous attacks. He said no, it wasnurteous't their policy to do so. I then sent him Mr Shea's e-mail saying him and Michael might want to talk to Shea and find out what really bothering him about them. In my e-mails to Mr Rafe, I found him to be a kind, courteous, Christian gentleman. If he has any contact with Mark, I hope what Simon has rubs off on Mark. We can use more people like Simon Rafe. Scotju

Anonymous said...

You should watch the promos for Voris' "No Bull in Madrid" event being held in conjunction with WYD. Even though MV is not in them they are quite amusing and knowing about MV's quirks - the pencil in particular.

http://www.nobullinmadrid.com/

I think this will be a "positive" event trying to shine light in darkness - contra Shea's assertions.

Tancred said...

I'm not sure how calling Voris "theologically stupid" is supposed to entice people to take Shea seriously.

Father Skeris aforementioned offers a very strong critique of that bit of extra-ecclesial schlock.

Anonymous said...

Thanks David Alexander, I'm going to pop popcorn ( :) )and listen to EVERYone of those homilies.

So far . . . LOVE what I hear.

Going to continue to listen to Voris too.

Toni, Akron,Ohio

bill bannon said...

The "torture" digression takes a fictional turn. The Church taught torture in its actions...ie...in the living Church. I don't think we ever should have had it for heresy but this mass murderer in Norway may have been deterred if torture existed as a penalty for mass murder.

We cover up many things...prior to our covering up sex abuse. That's why Pope Leo XIII wrote urging Catholic historians to be objective. He wrote that because Catholic writers were not being objective. Let's go to the new advent article on the Spanish Inquisition right near the bottom, which articles refutes the canard that Rome and Popes had nothing to do with the Spanish Inquisition:

"
The Spanish Inquisition..... the predominant ecclesiastical nature of the institution can hardly be doubted. The Holy See sanctioned the institution, accorded to the grand inquisitor canonical installation and therewith judicial authority concerning matters of faith, while from the grand inquisitor jurisdiction passed down to the subsidiary tribunals under his control. Joseph de Maistre introduced the thesis that the Spanish Inquisition was mostly a civil tribunal; formerly, however, theologians never questioned its ecclesiastical nature. Only thus, indeed, can one explain how the Popes always admitted appeals from it to the Holy See, called to themselves entire trials and that at any stage of the proceedings, exempted whole classes of believers from its jurisdiction, intervened in the legislation, deposed grand inquisitors, and so on."

bill bannon said...

correction: article at new advent is titled: Inquisition....not Spanish Inquisition.

I am not Spartacus said...

Francis J. Beckwith is Professor of Philosophy & Church-State Studies at Baylor University. With his appointment in the Department of Philosophy, he also teaches courses in the Departments of Political Science and Religion as well as the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, where he served as its Associate Director from July 2003 until January 2007. He is also a Resident Scholar in Baylor's Institute for Studies of Religion (ISR)....

(His Bio is too lengthy to post, spiced as it is with numerous citations of awards honors, etc etc...


And here is Dr Beckwith weighing-in on Mr Shea:

"Ed is spot on here. The main reason for my own self-imposed detachment from this conversation--found on this entry and elsewhere--is Shea's apparent inability to entertain two possibilities: (1) that one can honestly disagree with him while attempting to be true to Church doctrine, and (2) that queries about definitions and distinctions are not Jesuitical inventions of the inauthentic sadist employed to excuse evil, but rather, serious attempts to advance the common good."

Posted by Francis J. Beckwith | May 4, 2009 6:09 PM

That is, both Philosophy Professors are quite familiar with Mr Shea's nasty personal attacks and his penchant for assigning malign motives to others who disagree with his personal opinions.

Dear Mr Comerford. People are not fools. These exchanges by Mr Shea are not made-up. Good, patient, kind, and highly intelligent men, like Dr Feser and Dr Beckwith, among many, many others, are fed-up with him being an angry our-of-control, abusive, bully, and more and more, men of education and honor are simply refusing to deal with him.

Whenever Mr Shea errs by disagreeing with highly educated experts – E. Michael Jones, Robert Sungenis, Dr Feser, Dr Beckwith, Fr Brain Harrison etc etc – and it becomes apparent that they are far more knowledgeable about whatever topic is under discussion, Mr Shea resorts to his Alley Cat rhetoric and becomes highly and personally abusive.

Mr. Comerford, defend him to the bitter end but know that by defending his indefenisble actions you are undermining your own reputation as one who can think and act independently.

Mr. Shea if you are reading this, I beg you to get some mental health counseling and some spiritual counseling. I have no desire to see you lose your job but you are definitely on a course of self-destruction with your hateful and out-of-control behavior

I am not Spartacus said...

"Mr. Shea launched no personal attacks on the priest - scholar"

Dear Mr Comerford. I suspect that even Mr. Shea will regret your "help."


From Mr Shea's CAEI website

TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2010

CLARIFICATION BY FR. BRIAN HARRISON, O.S.

Fr. Harrison asks that I post the following:

On this website and elsewhere, my obedience to the Holy Father and overall fidelity to the Church's magisterium was angrily and extensively called in question last week, following some telephoned comments I gave to the New York Times (February 27, 2010, p. A15). I am therefore very appreciative of the Christian and gentlemanly spirit Mark Shea has now shown in deleting those attacks and posting instead an apology and partial retraction. ....

I am not Spartacus said...

"'ll just repeat what I said earlier: Members of the Body of Christ attacking other members of the Body of Christ is unbecoming of our baptismal call. This is turning into a circular firing squad..."

Dear Fr Bill P. Silence in the face of the long-established public pattern of personal abuse by Mr Shea is not an option. It must be confronted and condemned.

Anonymous said...

Meh...you could have someone read from the Catechism and undoubtedly there would be Catholics squalling, throwing out labels such as "progressive" or "conservative".

Somebody's always going to find something to gripe about. The trick is not giving them the attention they're seeking.

Richard W Comerford said...

"On this website and elsewhere, my obedience to the Holy Father and overall fidelity to the Church's magisterium was angrily and extensively called in question last week"

And Mr. Shea himself angrily posted exactly what?

"I am therefore very appreciative of the Christian and gentlemanly spirit Mark Shea has now shown in deleting those attacks and posting instead an apology and partial retraction."

And what a gentleman Mr. Shea is!

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Richard W Comerford said...

"Mr. Shea if you are reading this, I beg you to get some mental health counseling and some spiritual counseling. I have no desire to see you lose your job but you are definitely on a course of self-destruction with your hateful and out-of-control behavior"

What is it with you guys and Mr. Shea? Do you not think that some of your posts are getting just a little bit weird? If Mr. Shea is so evil just stop visiting his website and pray for him.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Richard W Comerford said...

The "torture" digression takes a fictional turn. The Church taught torture in its actions...ie...in the living Church."

The Catholic Church is not the Church of Later Day Saints; but rather it is the Church of present day sinners. Since Judas Churchmen have betrayed Christ. But their betrayals do not constitute doctrine. Rather the Vicar of Christ, acing under certain conditions, defines faith and morals. Every Pope, and Council united with the Pope, who has taught on the matter of torture has defined torture as "intrinsically evil".

Jack Bauer is a fictional character.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous said...

Mark Shea is the most mean spirited, arrogant, obnoxious, uncharitable Catholic I ever known.

Jasper

Richard W Comerford said...

"Mark Shea is the most mean spirited, arrogant, obnoxious, uncharitable Catholic I ever known."

Is this the same guy who posts prayer requests almost every day on his blog; to include requests for prayers from his worst critics?

What a terrible man! Lets water him.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Jay Anderson said...

Re:Lest we forget

For almost a decade Mr. Shea has been absolutely heroic; and brilliant, in both defending and explaining the Church's teachings regarding torture and just war. And this is at a time when other Catholic voices have been largely silent on these matters; with even a few actually advocating evil. Courage should be applauded."


And I have for years stood with Mark and applauded such efforts. But that is a completely irrelevant nonsequitur to the allegations that Mark's blogging often fails in charity, unless you're making the consequentialist argument that the allegedly uncharitable behavior should be ignored because it often has been utilized in furtherance of the greater good of debunking torture advocacy.


"He personally attacked ... Christopher Blosser in an ugly and vile manner."

"Mr. Shea disagreed with the torture advocates."


Anyone who refers to Chris Blosser as a "torture advocate" is a liar and can rot with the rest of the liars.

Richard W Comerford said...

"Mark's blogging often fails in charity"

Kind of like that Guy who was always talking about milestones around neck, hell and damnation?

"Anyone who refers to Chris Blosser as a "torture advocate" is a liar and can rot with the rest of the liars."

Who? The only person who has linked the words "torture advocate" to the name "Chris Blosser" in the same sentence is Jay Anderson.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Athelstane said...

This is a few miles down the rabbit hole now, but: how did E. Michael Jones and Robert Sungenis become "highly educated experts?"

Mark Shea in his blog incarnation is an apologist who wears his heart on his sleeve. Sometimes that redounds greatly to his benefit; sometimes he ends up posting things he regrets - and to his credit, he is quite contrite when he realizes it. The debate with Feser and Beckwith was not (I think) one of his finer moments. It's also true that he has had run-ins with some...advocates for torture who have not been so intellectually honest, or polite.

In the end, I think these debates about personalities just aren't very helpful. As Fr. Bill wisely observes, we look like a circular firing squad, not a helpful evangelism posture. On my scorecard, Michael Voris overreacted to the problems with one famous evangelical hymn lately popular in some Catholic parishes; and Mark Shea overreacted to his overreaction. But I'll continue to follow both, and remain confident that both will continue to grow and succeed as apologists in their unique ways.

bill bannon said...

Richard Comerford,
     Cite us the Councils that called torture an "intrinsic evil".  I know of none.  Neither do you.  You are imagining a history that never happened.
    John Paul II cited Vatican II which had used the word  "disgrace" about torture and he points that out in section 80 of "Splendor of the Truth" whose other sin categories he then also linked to the phrase "intrinsic evil".  It ..."intrinsic evil" used about these categories began with him....not in any Council.  The problem was that he simultaneously called slavery an intrinsic evil which was news to God who had given chattel slavery to the Jews here in Leviticus 25:44-46
    44
"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations
45
You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels,
46
and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen."

    Slavery is now unnecessary and thus contextually evil in non nomadic, modern economies which need paid workers to buy products...and it always was an existential evil.....but not a moral evil since God gave it to the Jews.

Jay Anderson said...

"The only person who has linked the words "torture advocate" to the name "Chris Blosser" in the same sentence is Jay Anderson."

Oh, spare me the sophistry: "... linked the words ... in the same sentence." Never mind that you linked them in two sentences in one post.

And keep your insufferable "God bless" to yourself. Invoking the Divine Blessing is not something that should be so thoughless as to be just another piece of someone's signature line.

Richard W Comerford said...

"Cite us the Councils that called torture an "intrinsic evil"."

Vatican II

"John Paul II cited Vatican II"

He certainly did. As does B XVI. And even Father Harrison has now submitted to Pope Benedict's teaching on this matter.

"which was news to God who had given chattel slavery to the Jews here in Leviticus 25:44-46"

Sorry. I am a follower of Jesus Christ who gave us a New Covenant wherein he raised us from the status of slaves to sons and heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven. You know the Covenant with all of that "love thy neighbor" and love they enemy" stuff.

But if you want to stay and live in the Old Covenant with all that "eye for an eye" and slave owning way of living; well, good luck to you.

As for me. My family and I will follow Jesus Christ.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

bill bannon said...

Richard,
You actually lie in plain sight and depend on the majority of readers not researching your imaginings but also not following a plain sight thread. Vatican II called torture a "disgrace". John Paul II alone used the phrase "intrinsic evil" in a non infallible text. Generally drunkeness is a disgrace but Scripture urges it for some in Proverbs 31:6 Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress;
Pro 31:7 let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more.

Ergo "disgrace" is not equivalent to intrinsic evil.

Secondly it doesn't matter that the OT has God giving slavery....that means that it can't be an intrinsic evil because God did not give e.g. real intrinsic evils to the Jews like bestiality and incest...regardless of the changes brought by the NT which by the way tells "bid slaves be submissive to their masters" Titus 2:9
Earth to Richard....God does not give real intrinsic evils in either the OT or the NT. Divorce which He gave for the unbaptized Jews was not an intrinsic evil because even now the Church dispenses from non baptized marriages in favor of
the faith.

Richard W Comerford said...

“Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”

Oh I get it! Things that cause disgrace, injustice, are offensive to human dignity or negate of the honor due to the creator are really good things which are NOT intrinsically evil. Silly me. And shame on JP II, the Vicar of Christ, for not figuring all this out for himself.


"Divorce which He gave for the unbaptized Jews was not an intrinsic evil because even now the Church dispenses from non baptized marriages in favor of the faith."

And divorce is another good thing! How could I be so blind? That is another one JP II missed.

Boy, this is wonderful. I am learning so much. Up is down and down is up. The Vicar of Christ is not guided by the Holy Spirit when he teaches on faith and morals. Who would of thought. I will listen to you any day over that idiot JP II.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

I usually agree with Voris but in this case, he is way, way out of line. His comments reflect not only the bigotry and air of superiority many Catholics feel toward Protestants, but the almost reflexive bunker mentality that renders even legitimate disagreements as "anti-Catholic."

If Voris is correct about the Church in the U.S. disintegrating w/o constant immigration, then what does that say about the Church's ability to teach and communicate the faith w/o an authoritarian (as opposed to an authoritative) approach? It really doesn't speak to that ability very well, does it?

Voris might not want to believe this but Protestants and Eastern Orthodox are his brothers in the faith, whether he likes it or not. That faith is in Christ, not in institutions that claim authority in His name while blaspheming that name...and having done so for centuries.

Anonymous said...

Toni, Akron Ohio

Responding to Joseph D'Hippolito.

Joe, regarding your 12;27 am post. Tell me, if Protestants had organized schools where, for many years, Protestant teaching was taught and then that changed to where Catholics were allowed to attend and the Protestant teaching was diluted. Diluted to the point you no longer recognize it as Protestant teaching what would you say about that? I don't know what your allegiance is to Protestant teaching (being there are many different Protestant teaching) BUT, the Catholic church, for many years had (has ? I don't know) dogma. Now, I don't know what they have. Voris speaks to THAT.

Is it not true Protestants only have to ask for forgiveness to be saved? Catholics, whether you agree or not, believe it is through confession one is saved. Since all this watering down though even that's a joke. And from this watering down we see many In-name-only Catholic -- lay, schools, priests, nuns, Knights of Columbus, etc., etc., And from that, Catholics are on the pill, aborting, not attending Mass on Sunday and when they do they receive communion. I could go on but why bore the reader. Oh, and they believe like the Protestants - just ask for forgiveness. Where did that come from !! ?

Voris is my kind of Catholic. No watering down from him. That's the problem with Catholics (leadership too) don't recognize Catholic Dogma any longer. Some of our Bishops are trying to correct a huge error in letting dogma stray. Problems is, enough Bishops are liberal and standing in the way of the Bishops trying to turn things around.

Reformation anyone ? ! .

bill bannon said...

Richard,
The Church and thus all Popes cooperate with the divorce of unbaptized people in Pauline and Petrine privilege marriage cases. Technically those cases are supposed to go through the Vatican offices and always involve divorce.
Annullments also involve divorce and involve Church cooperation. Divorce is an intrinsic evil only for baptized, mentally healthy couples. It is a lesser evil in other cases of the non baptized or of the maturity deficient.
Obviously slavery can't be an intrinsic evil due to Leviticus 25 and by the way
"deportation" in the unqualified sense of section 80 can't be an intrinsic evil since in May of 2010, Pope Benedict allowed Italy to protect him by deporting 2 muslim students who had been planning to kill him.
Hence you're stuck with Benedict protecting himself by use of an intrinsic evil...deportation....unless Benedict rightly saw flaws in the unqualified nature of section 80.
Torture also cannot be an intrinsic evil unqualifiedly since Christ said, "The Scriptures cannot be broken" (Jn.10:35) which still applies to the book of Proverbs unlike Leviticus which Proverbs has several proverbs that include a rod being used on fools and it has this passage which prevents all torture from being evil per se:
Pro. 20:30 " Evil is cleasened away with bloody lashes and a scourging to the
inmost being."

So to sum up, we know that slavery is not an intrinsic evil from Leviticus 25; we know that deportation is not an intrinsic evil because Benedict cooperated with it to protect his life; and we know torture is not an intrinsic evil due to Proverbs in several places. Of course, all this is lost on you because you are an a priori person....ie evidence means zero.

I am not Spartacus said...

Fr Harrison writes - "On this website and elsewhere, my obedience to the Holy Father and overall fidelity to the Church's magisterium was angrily and extensively called in question last week"


Mr Comerford says - And Mr. Shea himself angrily posted exactly what?

Mr. Comeford. Dunno. I don't read is Blog, and, he took down his unjust and vile attack but it is obvious, if words mean anything, that Mr. Shea angrily attacked Fr Harrison – a reaality you have denied in public in here.

“If Mr. Shea is so evil just stop visiting his website and pray for him.”

Mr Comerford. You appear to have difficulty with reading comprehension. I have already said, more than once, that I do not read his blog.

bruno said...

"Dear Fr Bill P. Silence in the face of the long-established public pattern of personal abuse by Mr Shea is not an option. It must be confronted and condemned." "I am not Spartacus"

You seem to be appointed to do the world a favor. Hum!
Looks more like an emotional upset to me. You have
said in your postings that you wouldn't post any more, and yet you carry on. Looks like an emotional upset to me. You attack Mark with your interpretations and no solid facts that I can see; looks like an emotional upset to me.

LarryD: " Man, I gotta make more popcorn..."
July 23, 2011 11:39 PM

Not only funny, but probably the best comment if reflected on.

Richard W Comerford said...

"I don't read is Blog, and, he took down his unjust and vile attack but it is obvious"

Then how do you know that the evil Mr. Shea is evil if you did not read his evil writings?

"I have already said, more than once, that I do not read his blog."

Then how do you know that the evil Mr. Shea is evil if you do not read his blog. Why do you stalk his name throughout the Catholic internet?

Do you not think that what you are doing is even slightly weird?

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous said...

Why Can't We Be Friends?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRGd0gD0QNE

Anonymous said...

Mr. Comerford, can you please stop finishing your comments with "God bless"?. It sounds so trite. Like a smile following a sneer.

I am not Spartacus said...

"You seem to be appointed to do the world a favor."

I am volunteering my time and talent:)

"Looks more like an emotional upset to me."

Yes. I do get upset when I learn of the latest nasty, unjust attack by Mr Shea. I was raised that the masculine thing to do was to come to the defense of those unjustly attacked. And that is what I am doing.

" You attack Mark with your interpretations and no solid facts that I can see;"

I can not account for how it is you view and process information but it is simply not arguable that I have not produced any facts. I have posted quotes and links and others have reacted to those facts.

As for Mr Shea's inability to control himself when other perfectly orthodox Catholics disagree with his personal opinions - I have concluded that he is unable to abstain from those nasty, vile, and personal assaults and that he needs professional mental health and spiritual counseling for what could it profit a man to earn such a reputation by those actions?

Mr Shea personally attacks those who disagree with his personal opinions even though the people he attacks maintain the Bonds of Catholic Unity in Worship, Doctrine,and Authority and not publicly confronting and condemning those attacks is not an option for me.

And I think his friends are doing him no favor if they are not taking him aside and telling him to stop this crap. What he does, whether he can control it or not, is ruining his reputation and it will lead to an ugly end for him.

I am not Spartacus said...

"Then how do you know that the evil Mr. Shea is evil if you did not read his evil writings?

Dear Mr Comerford. Sometimes, they are posted in here. I mean, the thread you are currently participating in was posted in here; on this website.

"I have already said, more than once, that I do not read his blog."

"Then how do you know that the evil Mr. Shea is evil if you do not read his blog. Why do you stalk his name throughout the Catholic internet? "

You are a silly man, Mr Comerford. I suspected Mr Shea would come to regret that you are such a staunch supporter of his. I not only do not think Mr Shea is evil, I have never written or said that he is evil. However, as I noted once before, you have adopted his nasty tactic of making false accusations.

I do not stalk Mr Shea. I learn about his nasty actions on other sites because I am a reader of those sites- such as What's Wrong With the World? - or others that I read - such as E.Michael Jones at "Culture Wars" (I am a subscriber) or Mr Sungenis at his Bellarmine Theological Forum and I read their objections and responses to his nasty, vile, and personal attacks.

And I even read about it when others challenge him to debates after he has personally attacked them and called then unfaithful. But, he refuses those challenges to debate - even though Mr Sungenis, for instance, -offered to pay his expenses to fly him out for a debate.

"Do you not think that what you are doing is even slightly weird?"

Mr. Comerford. I do not think what I am doing is even slightly weird. I think it is masculine and Catholic. It is always a masculine thing to do to stand-up to a bully.

What I do think is weird is your habit of appending "God Bless You" to everything you write.

I am not Spartacus said...

..doesn't not?...

speaking of a college education :)

I am not Spartacus said...

"Sometimes that redounds greatly to his benefit; sometimes he ends up posting things he regrets - and to his credit, he is quite contrite when he realizes it. The debate with Feser and Beckwith was not (I think) one of his finer moments. "

Dear Mr Athelstane. Why the need for Mr Shea to repeatedly publicly take back his angry words and become contrite?

Is it not because he can not control himself?

He has a long-established pattern of blowing his top and unjustly lambasting somebody and then comes the apology (but not always ) and then lather, rinse, repeat; again and again.

It is one thing to lose control in real time in a person to person situation but most men with a modicum of self control eventually learn to grow-up and stop acting with such angry self-righteous malice. That is, they learn to control their temper.

But it is far worse in the case of Mr Shea because he has to first write-out and then intentionally publish this crap on his Blog.

There is simply no excuse for this repetitious behavior and y'all have got to stop making excuses for him and get him some help.

It is quite clear he can not stop doing what he is doing. If he could stop he would have stopped long ago.

How many times are you going to make excuses for Mr Shea's nasty actions? How many passes are you going to give him?

At some point, even you will become fed-up with this repetitious pattern of abusive bullying of other orthodox faithful Catholics.

Mr Shea obviously has many many friends. They ought come to his aid and convince him to get some professional help before he completely ruins his reputation. The last thing he needs from his friends is a long train of excuses and rationalisations after one of his blow-ups.

We both know this latest unjust explosion will not be his last, don't we?

Richard W Comerford said...

"I do not stalk Mr Shea. I learn about his nasty actions on other sites because I am a reader of those sites"

Wait a minute. You mean that you are not working off primary denouements and sources? You are relying on the testimony of third parties: AKA gossip? And you say your behavior is not even a little bit weird? Indeed you claim that what you are doing is "masculine"?

Who would have thought it? In the 21st Century masculinity is now equated with gossiping.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Richard W Comerford said...

"Annullments also involve divorce and involve Church cooperation"

No. Protestant are sometimes confused by this. An annulment is not a divorce. The Church teaches that it is simply a declaration that a marriage never existed in the firsts place.

"proverbs has several proverbs that include a rod being used on fools and it has this passage which prevents all torture from being evil per se: Pro. 20:30 " Evil is cleasened away with bloody lashes and a scourging to the
inmost being."

Christ came not only to fulfill the law but to also give us a new Covenant wherein we no longer lived by "an eye for an eye" but we returned "good for evil". Yesterday Pope Benedict XVI, the Vicar of Christ, told us to: "Abandon the way of hatred".

If you wish to follow the way of hatred, torture and slavery that is your business. But I am a Catholic. My family and I pray for the grace to follow the path of love laid out by Jesus Christ.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Chris-2-4 said...

Is there some kind of corollary to Godwin's Law that says the longer a thread grows debating Mark Shea's merits, the probability of Richard Comerford invoking the God Bless defense of Mark Shea vis-a-vis torture, approaches 1?

Richard W Comerford said...

"Ithe longer a thread grows debating Mark Shea's merits, the probability of Richard Comerford invoking the God Bless defense of Mark Shea vis-a-vis torture, approaches 1?:

Is there a possibility that Mr. Shea is not the font of all evil; but, rather, an Orthodox defender of the Faith; who publicly asks pardon for anyone he had offended and prays for his detractors.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

bill bannon said...

Richard
You skipped Pauline and Petrine cases which involve divorce both legal and existential. Annullments involve legal divorce but not existential divorce.

An eye for an eye is forbidden to private persons not to the state. The New Covenant did not overturn the state being the minister of God's wrath with the sword. Perhaps your family Bible is missing Romans 13:3-4. Let's make up for that deficit from the NAB translation:

3
For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
4
for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer."

You've been shown this probably multiple times before but you have this delete key in your soul which confuses Protestants and Catholics.

"

I am not Spartacus said...

"Wait a minute. You mean that you are not working off primary denouements and sources? You are relying on the testimony of third parties: AKA gossip?"

Dear Mr Comerford. I have already explained to another, on this thread, that the links I provided included internal links back to Mr Shea's rancid rants. And I have also written that I was on other sites and witnessed personally the rancid rants of Mr Shea.

All of this is documented public knowledge; all of this is factual. It is not "gossip."

And now, I am done responding to you. You appear to have severe reading comprehension problems and I am not going to waste any more of my time responding to your non-germane inanities.

In addition to that problem, you have not once, not once, admitted error when I have proven your assertions false. Who desires to have an exchange with such a man?

Not me, that's who.

Good bye.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dera Chris2-4...LMAO Touche

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

Is it not true Protestants only have to ask for forgiveness to be saved? Catholics, whether you agree or not, believe it is through confession one is saved.

For evangelical Protestants, salvation comes through making a committment to repentence and "accepting Jesus as one's Lord and Savior." I don't think Catholics believe they're saved. Otherwise, why would you think you were saved every time you confess to a priest? Yes, confession is necessary, either in a sacramental or non-sacramental context. But that's a process of sanctification, not "salvation." I think you're confusing the two but this is a digression from my original point.

For Voris to blame the surrounding culture for the decline of Catholic identity is a cop-out. The Catholic Church is responsible for creating and maintaining its own identity. The problem is that, for centuries, Catholicism in Europe has relied on a privledged relationship w/either the state or general society to thrive. As a result, it tends to rely less on the Holy Spirit. It's no wonder that, in societies in which Catholicism doesn't have such relationships, it withers. Catholicism has become far too co-dependent on the European model to maintain spiritual vitality.

It's one thing to support and defend Catholic dogma. It's quite another to look down the noses of other Christians because they're not members of "your" church, regardless of how "your" is defined. That's not solely a Catholic problem, obviously. But it's too big of a problem throughout institutionalized Christianity. It comes when people take Christ's sacrifice for sin and resurrection to destroy death for granted, and place confessional concerns ahead of that. Doing so, sir, is idolatry, pure and simple.

Richard W Comerford said...

"You skipped Pauline and Petrine cases which involve divorce both legal and existential."

Nope. Sorry, The Church does not teach that this is divorce. From Catholic Answers:

"A Pauline Privilege is the dissolution of a purely natural marriage which had been contracted between two non-Christians, one of whom has since become a Christian. The Pauline Privilege is so-named because it is based upon the apostle Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.

In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul gives instructions concerning problem marriages. In verses 10-11 he discusses sacramental marriages (marriages between two baptized people) and indicates that they are indissoluble. It is possible for a husband and a wife in a sacramental marriage to separate, but they cannot remarry. They must remain separated and not attempt to marry again, or they must reconcile with one other.

In verses 12-16 Paul gives instructions concerning the thornier case of a couple who have only a natural marriage. A sacramental marriage, one that communicates supernatural grace, requires that both partners be baptized. If neither is or only one is, their union is only a natural one. Sometimes one party to a natural marriage converts and becomes a Christian, which can cause the marital problems that Christians are expected to face (Luke 12:51-53, 18:29-30).

While natural marriages should be preserved if at all possible (1 Cor. 7:12-14, 16), they can be dissolved in some cases. Paul tells us in verse 15 that if the unbelieving spouse refuses to live with the Christian partner, the unbeliever can be allowed to withdraw from the marriage, leaving the Christian partner unbound, free to remarry. The Pauline Privilege thus may apply when the Church dissolves a natural marriage after one partner has become Christian and there is a just cause, such as the non-Catholic's refusal to live at peace with the Christian partner.

The Pauline Privilege differs from an annulment because it dissolves a real but natural marriage. An annulment is a declaration that there never was a valid marriage to begin with."

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Richard W Comerford said...

" I provided included internal links back to Mr Shea's rancid rants. And I have also written that I was on other sites and witnessed personally the rancid rants of Mr Shea."

Well that is the problem here is it not? Some guy or girl titled "I am not Spartacus" has anonymously posted about 30 times in a single thread. These posts attack on a real, third party named Mark Shea. The 30 or so posts allege that Mr. Shea himself has produced posts that are "vile" and "rancid". Yet whoever this guy or girl is, he or she has not quoted, in 30-posts, a single "vile" or "rancid" statement actaully by Mr. Shea.

And this guy or girl titled "I am not Spartacus" boast of posting attacks on Mr. Shea not only on this thread; but all over the internet. What is more this guy or gal has anonymously been doing so for years. Indeed he or she has built up a database concerning Mr. Shea.

This obsession with Mr. Shea is more than a little bit creepy.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous said...

Richard W Comerford said...This obsession with Mr. Shea is more than a little bit creepy.
-------------------------------
You would certainly know about that.

Happy day

Robert M. Leaverchevy

Richard W Comerford said...

"You would certainly know about that."

Sadly yes. I have watched people for 8-years waste their lives attacking Mr. Shea. Even going so far as to set up websites. And all for what?

Just think of what could have been accomplished if that time has been spent in prayer instead.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous said...

Yes, sadly indeed. Do you know that some of his self-identified "fans" have also made it a personal crusade to follow Mr. Shea around to the many different websites on which he appears daily in order to defend him? And they do this no matter how poorly he has behaved. And all for what? Website notoriety.

Just think of what could have been accomplished if that time had been spent reading about the life a saint instead.

Happy day

Robert M. Leaverchevy

Whatever~! said...

IAMS

"Whatever is hostile to life itself, ... whatever violates the integrity of the human person, ... whatever is offensive to human dignity: ... all these and the like are a disgrace." Torture is a disgrace. Stop defending it.

I am not Spartacus said...

"Torture is a disgrace. Stop defending it."

Dear whatever. I have not written one word in defense of torture in here or anywhere else.

Richard W Comerford said...

"Do you know that some of his self-identified "fans" have also made it a personal crusade to follow Mr. Shea around to the many different websites on which he appears daily in order to defend him?"

Every day!!! Good for them! I wish I had the time to do that. It has been a good 2-3 months since I wrote a word in defense of the evil Mr. Shea.

Just think in this day and age of selfish individualism there are folks willing to spend the time and energy to defend a man's good name and reputation. A man who in turn has defended the weak and innocent from the intrinsic evil that is torture. I am inspired.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

bill bannon said...

Richard
Catholic Answers merely used the word "natural" where I used "existential".
I and they both meant a real but not sacramental marriage. But thanks for copying and pasting an article that agrees with me.

C Whitty said...

I cant read all these comments LarryD. Too many words! Just upload a video or something pleaaaase

Richard W Comerford said...

"Catholic Answers merely used the word "natural" where I used "existential".
I and they both meant a real but not sacramental marriage. But thanks for copying and pasting an article that agrees with me."

You are welcome. But the point is that the Church does not teach that the Pauline Privilege is a divorce - as you apparently do.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

bill bannon said...

Richard
They are using the word "dissolution" for divorce. If a man's wife says to him,
"I am dissolving our marriage"....he doesn't say, " Whew....for a minute there, I thought you were going to divorce me."

Anonymous said...

Dear Robert M. Leaverchevy,

I like your style.

Peaceful Bliss,

Rothschild E. Goerhonda

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Comerford,

I too am inspired that there are such intensely focused individuals who will defend "the evil Mr. Shea" no matter how poorly behaved he may be on the topic at hand just because they have agreed with him on the topic of torture. They are so disciplined at this that they will almost certainly change the topic to torture even when all parties agree that torture is intrinsically evil in an attempt to vilify those who may disagree with "the evil Mr. Shea" on some other topic no matter how benign. It certainly is creepy and after eight years, I'm glad that you could rightly point this out.

Happy Day

Robert M. Leaverchevy

Anonymous said...

Dear Rothschild E. Goerhonda,

Sir, I am honored to make your acquaintance. I can tell by the mark you make, that you sir, are a rugged soul that shares a certain bold outlook on life that you share in an almost Mr. Ernest Heminghway-esque manner as you recount your many adventures in life.

Happy Day

Robert M. Leaverchevy

Steven P. Cornett said...

You know,

This situation reminds me of this.

Why Can't We Be Friends?

Richard W Comerford said...

"They are using the word "dissolution" for divorce."

No. You are using the word dissolution for divorce.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Richard W Comerford said...

"no matter how poorly behaved he may be on the topic at hand"

Well, that raises the question as to whether Mr. Shea, in the eyes of his many critics, ever behaves properly.

"they will almost certainly change the topic to torture even when all parties agree that torture is intrinsically evil"

Sadly this is not true. In this threat alone one of Mr. Shea's critics openly and clearly advocates for torture.

Indeed it seems that all of Mr. Shea's long time critics advocate for torture (or like the Pre-WW II Nazis call torture "enhanced interrogation") and/or unjust war. As entire websites have been devoted to Mr. Shea's alleged bad behavior the question must be asked: Are Mr. Shea's many critics motivated by Ms. Manners and her rules of etiquette or a perverse political ideology and a Jack Bauer like lust for violence?

Maybe the answer is that Ms. Manners inspires hatred for Mr Shea among the well bred tea drinking class? But over thirty posts from one anonymous yet professional Shea critic in a single thread crosses teh line into fanaticism.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

I am not Spartacus said...

Because Mr Shea is at liberty to assign malign motives to faithful Catholics he disagrees with -

Voris' sole message is "I am the measure of Real Catholicism and those who agree with me have the right to call themselves Catholic, while those who disagree are liars and lukewarm fake Catholics". -

it would seem fair that an observer could take a stab at the psychological disorder that so frequently causes Mr Shea to unjustly attack perfectly orthodox Catholics he disagrees with; Catholics who maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority.

My guess? Well, because Mr Shea has a long-established pattern of losing control and lambasting others, and then later coming to, in many cases, expressing regret he has lost control,only to repeat that pattern, again, and again, and again, one possible cause of these hateful outbursts is -


Explosive personality disorder: 
Persons with explosive personality disorder may show outbursts of rage and aggression not in keeping with usual personality, often in response to minor provocation: These persons with explosive personality disorder may lose control over a situation and then regret it later.


That sure does seem to fit his long-extablished pattern but even if I am wrong in my stab at what lies behind his sick and twisted pattern of personally savaging others he disagrees with, over things that do not even rise to the level of minor provocation, there is one thing everybody on this thread can agree with-

He. Will. Do. It. Again.

Unless he gets treatment, in the not too distant future, there will be yet another explosive loss of control by Mr Shea directed against some other Orthodox Catholic who disagrees with his personal opinion and Mr Shea will spill enmity and invective all over that individual and assign malign motives , and seek to speak for that person so as to cast that person in the worst possible light etc etc etc.

The past is prologue.

Anonymous said...

IANS, I don't know if your "stab" at figuring out Mark Shea is the right one, but I do know this: when a person repeats the same dysfunctional behaviour expecting different results, he's nuts! Scotju

Richard W Comerford said...

"Because Mr Shea is at liberty to assign malign motives to faithful Catholics he disagrees with"

Has Mr. Vorris complained of being maligned? Indeed what faithful Catholic in full communion with the Bishop of Rome has ever accused Mr. Shea of maligning him?

"Catholics who maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority."

Catholics who promote torture, the inhumane treatment of prisoners and unjust was tear the "Bonds of Unity".

"Explosive personality disorder: 
Persons with explosive personality disorder may show outbursts of rage and aggression not in keeping with usual personality, often in response to minor provocation"

You mean like some guy or gal who has spent a decade of his or her life making dozens of daily, aggressive, anonymous, public complaints of a person he or she has never met? Of course that kind of sounds liek cyber stalking to me.

"but even if I am wrong in my stab at what lies behind his sick and twisted pattern of personally savaging others he disagrees with"

Maybe you are suffering from "Explosive personality disorder".

"He. Will. Do. It. Again."

You. Will. Do. It. Again.

"Unless he gets treatment"

Or, unless you get treatment.

"The past is prologue."

It certainly is. Do you not think that a decade of this obsession is enough?

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous said...

I just realized it is a sin for me to be reading through all of these comments and watching this argument unfold. It's terrible. I am sorry that I did, and I am sorry that we Catholics tend to do this so often on these blogs. Really. Think about it. There is another way.

Richard W Comerford said...

"I just realized it is a sin for me to be reading through all of these comments"

When I was a young solider (back in the Dark Ages)my landlord was a Jew - a German Jew. He liked to point out that prior to Crystal Night that the Nazis had effectively rendered the Jews mute by making constant, daily anonymous attacks on them in the local papers (of which there were very many compared to today). Christians who attempted to defend the Jews were also criticized by other Christians, who adopted a morally superior tone, for daring to speak out. Silence was preferable to charity.

Kind of like what you are doing.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Calah said...

I guess I'm a little late to this party, but I have to say, I have tried and tried and tried and tried to like Mark Shea, to no avail. I dislike pointing out other's flaws in comboxes, especially since I have had so many of mine pointed out to me in a similar manner, but those occasions were always occasions of grace for me in which I learned something about my own character that needed to be remedied. While I always, always find something of value in everything he writes, I find Mr. Shea's blacklisting of all those who don't agree with his seamless garment theory of social justice as "not really Catholic" totally offensive. The seamless garment theory is a new development in Catholic social teaching. I happen to agree with much of it and disagree with parts, but to paint all of those who disagree as "fake Catholics" and other such lamentable terms that Mr. Shea has used is not in any way charitable or just. I also wish he would stop calling people names. This isn't the third grade. He has so much to offer, and I can't understand why he keeps sullying the waters with name-calling. It's frustrating.

Anyway, that's my two cents on it. I didn't read all of the comments cause I started to get a combox headache, so if this tendency has already been covered, I'm sorry for being repetitive. Also, I have no idea who Voris is, but I do think that this is a bad interpretation of one of the most beautiful songs on faith ever.

Old Soldier said...

@ Richard Comerford:

I was the annon @11:23 above.
I am not offended that you just compared me to Nazis. I could be. In fact, I could pretty much go apoplectic on you for choosing such an extreme, conflagatory and divisive analogy to make your point. But I will not. (certainly, I am not stifling anyone, or trying to.)

Perhaps you did not understand the meaning of my post. So I will try one more time, then leave.

First:
The discussion is not completely without merit. (Keep referring back here, when you feel like I am against the topic in all ways.)

Moving on:
It was a sin for me to read through your arguing, because I found it entertaining. Something tells me many people do. It's like a game. We like to see who gets in the next best shot. But I am not confused about who's position is correct and being persuaded one way or another. In other words, I did not read through this to be informed. I have my own position and see the merits and flaws on both sides.

I believe that you are seeking the truth as is everyone else here. You believe you are right as does everyone else here.

My heart, though, tells me that Jesus is not well pleased that I chose to waste my time reading through a fight. I learned nothing. It added nothing to my soul. I gained nothing. Did you gain something? Did anyone? (Maybe you think you gained something for trying to defend someone.)

Something else tells me that Jesus is not pleased to see this kind of divisive conversation taking place (and in the MANNER it has been taking place).

I found both, your comments and the comments of others, whizzing past each other and being misunderstood like ships passing in the night. Neither side trying to understand the other. Neither side attempting in any way to make peace. So my participation in it was wrong. Now that I am here, I am probably STILL wrong for posting, but I have this little, tiny, hope that someone may read this and think twice about doing the same thing.

Fr. Bill (I think it was) above, was correct and made the most sense of anyone posting.

Bottom line:
Voris and Shea are BOTH the GOOD GUYS. They BOTH make and have made mistakes. EVERYONE knows that. THEY know that. What more is there to say about it? (I am sure we can find endless stuff to say)

But what this is not: A fight against the Nazis. OK? You are not Captain America and you are not defending to the last man the unrighteously attacked reputation of an innocent Jew who is on the point of murder. Would Shea think you are?

You will tear apart my post, no doubt. Perhaps you will still fail to get my point. That's fine. It is surely not without flaw. So have at it, my friend. I could wait for it, check back, and counter punch. (Oh and I have a good punch, too.) But what does that merit for me? I have been there and done that. My fists are permanently unclenched now.

Some here may find solace in your clear consciences that tell you this internecine bloodshed is necessary, just, helpful, etc.

For me - it's a sin. I will make attempts to spend that time in prayer instead. Perhaps I will not be alone? How many people here have participated in a blood battle with their good Catholic neighbor? How many believe in their hearts that it was necessary? Really necessary?

End.

(If I have misunderstood you or anyone here, or if my comments have been harsh, I sincerely ask your forgiveness as my intentions are merely to clarify and to encourage a more peaceful approach.)

God bless YOU, Mr. Comerford! AND ALL HERE! And may He grant us Peace, humility, wisdom and Mercy!

Amen!

Richard W Comerford said...

"I am not offended that you just compared me to Nazis."

You should be. If I had compared you to a Nazi. But I did not. Rather I compared you to the Christians who criticized other Christians for daring to defend Jews. You know. For causing all that unseemly public controversy.

"You are not Captain America and you are not defending to the last man the unrighteously attacked reputation of an innocent Jew who is on the point of murder. Would Shea think you are?"

As an old solider you know, or should know, that what happened at abu ghraib and GTMO were notisolated incidents. The U.S Army has tortured thousands of Muslims. And in so doing gave the enemy his best recruiting tool, which has resulted in the unnecessary deaths of American soldiers; and in turn probably hand victory in Iraq and Afghan to the enemy. Mr. Shea to my knowledge was the only notable Catholic to publicly and heroically defend the Church's teachings on this matter.

"Some here may find solace in your clear consciences that tell you this internecine bloodshed is necessary, just, helpful, etc."

Internecine? More than a few of Mr. Shea's anonymous critics have openly and clearly rejected the Church teachings regarding torture and just war; and they have refused to recognize the teaching authority of JP II.

JP II taught that it was the torturer and not the victim who in the long run suffered the most from torture. Both the USA and Israel now have thousands of young veterans who are trying to cope with having been either directly or indire4ctly involved with torture. As an old soldier you know or should know that these youngsters, at least in the American system are getting no help.

Look if you want to stand in a circle, holding hands, singing Kum bay ya then good for you. But for me there are too many dead America soldiers, broken veterans, tortured Muslims and endangered souls for that. And if you think that the Kum bay ya approach is the Christian one then read again the Gospels.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous said...

Someone who doesn't like the 'Vortex' doesn't have to watch it. Yes, he probably makes too much of 'wretch', but it can't be denied that Amazing Grace' was written as an expression of the heretical protestant doctrine of 'sola gratia'. So, while it's not, strictly speaking, anti-catholic, it does contradict catholic teaching, and is definitely not appropriate music for the mass. Of course, it might be less inappropriate than some modern hymns written by catholics, but that's a separate issue. 'It could be worse' isn't much of an argument.

I generally like Voris. I don't expect lengthy theological treatises from his short videos, but I do think that he's a good communicator in the video medium. On the other hand, if he's driving you away from the Church (which is strange, given that Voris doesn't = 'the Church') then you might just want to stop watching him and find something more suited to your spiritual needs.

Ivan K.

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

Can we PLEASE get back to the original subject of this thread?

Voris criticizes the phrase "a wretch like me" as being too "Protestant" and not reflecting Catholic theology. I would like to ask Mr. Voris one question:

Have you ever known anybody who is so grateful for a radical transformation from evil to good that such a person regards his former life as absolutely pathetic and, if I may, wretched?

Moreover, Mr. Voris, have you ever read St. Paul's self-description as "the worst of all sinners"? Was St. Paul a Protestant?

Thought so.

I rest my case.

Y'all may now go back to psychoanalyzing Mr. Shea.

Ulick Varange said...

Shea can be wrong even when he's right.

His detestation of Voris has nothing to do with the issue at hand, but runs much much deeper.

For all of you have been banned by the Shea, I recommend the new Facebook group called "Banned by Mark Shea: A Support Group."

http://www.facebook.com/groups/bannedbymarkshea

Ulick Varange said...

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B3sg9KJVweh1ZWZlNDIxYmMtMWYxMy00ODM4LTgzNTQtZTk3YTQ1Yjk1MGQw&hl=en_US

Post a Comment